House of Commons Administration Committee

Television: Rules of Coverage

Second Report of Session 2012–13

Report, together with formal minutes and evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 21 May 2012

HC 14 (incorporating HC 1818–i of Session 2010–12) Published on 13 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

The Administration Committee

The Administration Committee is appointed to consider the services provided by and for the House of Commons. It also looks at services provided to the public by Parliament, including visitor facilities, the Parliament website and education services.

Current membership Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden) (Chair) Rosie Cooper MP (Labour, West Lancashire) Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Graham Evans MP (Conservative, Weaver Vale) Rt Hon. Mark Francois MP (Conservative, Rayleigh and Wickford) Mark Hunter MP (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle) Mr Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) Simon Kirby MP (Conservative, Brighton Kemptown) Dr Phillip Lee MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Tessa Munt MP (Liberal Democrat, Wells) Sarah Newton MP (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth) Rt Hon. John Spellar MP (Labour, Warley) Mark Tami MP (Labour, Alyn and Deeside) Mr Dave Watts MP (Labour, St Helens North) Mike Weatherley MP (Conservative, Hove)

The following members were also members of the committee during the inquiry: Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Mr Shailesh Vara MP (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No 139, which is available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/ac.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are David Weir (Clerk), Keith Neary (Second Clerk), Dawn Brown (Committee Assistant) and Liz Parratt (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Administration Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 4151; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

Television: Rules of Coverage 1

Contents

Report Page

Television: rules of coverage 3 Remit and inquiry 3 History of television broadcasting in the Commons 3 How the current system works 3 Purpose of the rules 4 Positioning of cameras 4 Types of shot 6 Public gallery 7 Division lobbies 8 Paying for television coverage of Parliament 9 Recommendations for changes to the rules 11

Annex 1: rules of coverage 13

Annex 2: amended rules of coverage 16

Conclusions and recommendations 18

Formal Minutes 20

Witnesses 21

List of written evidence 22

Television: Rules of Coverage 3

Television: rules of coverage

Remit and inquiry 1. The Committee is required by its Standing Order to consider the services provided for and by the House. It was formed in 2005 by bringing together five previous Committees, one of which was the Broadcasting Committee. It has a standing instruction from the Commission to advise it on ‘the broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its Committees’.

2. This inquiry was prompted by requests from broadcasters including the BBC and ITV for a review of the rules of coverage. We set a simple term of reference: to consider the current rules of coverage for the Chamber, Westminster Hall and Committees, and whether any change was required. We visited the parliamentary television control room and took oral evidence from the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting, John Angeli, and from representatives of the BBC, ITV and Sky. We received written submissions from broadcasters and members of the public, and we viewed test pictures demonstrating new camera angles within the Chamber. The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly supplied information on the rules of coverage for the broadcasting of their proceedings, as did the Australian and Canadian Parliaments and the Greater London Assembly.

3. Our role in this matter is advisory: the recommendations we make are for the House of Commons Commission to consider. If it approves the changes we suggest in the rules of coverage, it may be necessary for a motion to be put to the House proposing their implementation. History of television broadcasting in the Commons 4. Television broadcasting of the House of Commons began on 21 November 1989. The House had previously been suspicious of it: the Commons rejected proposals to broadcast sittings on television in 1966, 1971, 1975 and 1985. Radio broadcasts of proceedings were allowed only from April 1978. The first broadcasts were billed as an experiment. It was judged a success and permanent arrangements were made for television broadcasting from 1990.

5. Detailed rules of coverage were drawn up during the original experiment to maintain parliamentary control of what pictures could be shown. In essence, the central principle is that the camera remain on the person speaking, except for cutaways to other Members mentioned in speeches, or long shots of the Chamber during the hiatus between speeches or during divisions or procedural events, such as presentation of Bills. The full rules, as amended in 2006, are set out in annex 1. Our proposals for changes to those rules are set out in annex 2 and are discussed in detail below. How the current system works 6. Eight remotely controlled cameras provide pictures from the Chamber, and the shots to be transmitted are selected by a director in the control room at 7 Millbank according to the rules of coverage. The directors, and the other staff who operate the system, are employed

4 Television: Rules of Coverage

by Bow Tie Television, which Parliament has contracted to provide the pictures. The contract is re-let every five years. Bow Tie is under the instruction of a parliamentary official, the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting. The choice of shot to be broadcast therefore lies not with the broadcasters but with the House itself. The BBC, ITV and others use the shot provided to them. Bow Tie also operates five cameras in the House of Lords, four in the second Commons Chamber, Westminster Hall, and others, including digital cameras for webcast, in Committee Rooms in the Palace of Westminster and in Portcullis House.

7. BBC Parliament, a digital channel, carries coverage from the House of Commons live, time-shifted coverage of the House of Lords, and unedited coverage of about 10 committees a week. On rare occasions, live coverage of the Lords may supersede coverage of the Commons—for example, a Friday morning debate on Defence in the Lords has been given higher priority than private Members’ Bills in the Commons. Live webcasting of proceedings in the two Houses and in some select committees began in January 2002.1 Purpose of the rules 8. The rules of coverage were devised to ensure that the House retained control over how it was portrayed on television. They are essentially guidelines for the camera operators and the television director setting out which shots may and may not be used, and what may and may not be shown. They provide guidelines for picture direction and instructions on how specific events, such as disorder, are to be treated.

9. The requirement to focus principally on the Member who has the floor has two broad justifications: a feed covering the totality of a Member’s speech provides a record for the broadcast archive, and news organisations which wish to use a speech would be unhappy if the clip they wanted was not available because the camera had been pointed elsewhere to add variety to the pictures. The needs of broadcasters and the House differ here: for us, the integrity of the broadcast record is more important than the diversity of the image broadcast. The maintenance of a proper record of proceedings is a primary objective of parliamentary broadcasting. The central principle guiding parliamentary broadcast must remain that the Member speaking is wholly or largely the focus of any broadcast. Positioning of cameras 10. The eight cameras are hung from the galleries above the Chamber and controlled remotely from Millbank. The director at Millbank therefore has a choice at any moment of eight shots, covering both sides of the Chamber and the central table and Speaker’s chair, and will select the shot that best fits the rules. The height of the cameras can mean, however, that while those seated on the higher benches are shot from a straight-on angle, those seated nearer the Floor of the Chamber are largely shot from above. This includes Ministers and their shadows at the Despatch Box, including the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister’s Question Time.

11. Peter Knowles, the controller of BBC Parliament, told us these angles are “incredibly unflattering”, and that “Front Benchers are seen mainly from the top of their foreheads and

1 Robert Rogers and Rhodri Walters, How Parliament Works, 6th edn, 2006, p. 180

Television: Rules of Coverage 5

top of their heads”.2 ITV said that the existing shot “mitigates against being able to convey the intimacy of the Chamber, and in particular disadvantages those speaking from the front bench”.3 Esme Wren, a Sky Executive Producer, concurred in relation to Prime Minister’s Questions or front-bench statements: “It is quite hard to be drawn in for some time when you are looking down on somebody. It is nice to see a good eye-to-eye exchange between the two contenders”.4

12. While it is an essential principle of the Chamber that all Members are equal, there is little point in pretending that from a broadcast point of view some are not more equal than others. News programmes using short clips from the Chamber are more likely to use shots of Ministers and shadow Ministers than of anyone else and the current shot, although familiar to the public, is not wholly satisfactory. Indeed, Mr Mares told us that ITV will sometimes film a separate interview with a Minister rather than use the Chamber footage for this reason.5

13. The Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting, John Angeli, conducted a short experiment during the Christmas Recess of 2011–12 by placing a camera on the table of the House to see whether a more realistic and natural shot could be obtained. He told us that the request for an eye-level shot of the front benches was entirely reasonable, but not a priority within the House’s budget.6 A fuller experiment with a table-mounted camera would cost £2,000 or £3,000.7 The camera in question would be small, roughly tennis-ball sized, and mounted on a thin stand. It would, however, be able to swivel and would be noticeable and potentially distracting for the person speaking and those nearby, including Mr Speaker, other front benchers and Whips.

14. This limited experiment demonstrates that considerably more natural shots can be obtained of front-bench speakers, although there would always be occasions when Ministers’ heads were down as they read statements, or when backs were turned to a table- mounted camera in front of Mr Speaker. The principal difficulty lies in placement: the experiment suggests that cameras mounted on or near the Despatch Boxes would be too close to Ministers and their shadows. The more obvious placement in front of the Clerks on the table may block their view of the Chamber, or that of the Chairman of Ways and Means when the House is in Committee.

15. So long as the minor costs concerned were borne by the broadcasters themselves and no charge arising on the public purse, we believe that it would, however, be valuable to conduct a fuller trial of the table-mounted camera, to gain a sense of how the House would be portrayed in action. In particular, we believe that running such an experiment during the next sitting of the UK Youth Parliament in the Chamber could provide valuable real- time evidence of how the camera would work in practice and in a full House.

2 Q 1 3 Ev 12 4 Q 1 5 Q 15 6 Q 37 7 Q 46

6 Television: Rules of Coverage

16. We recommend that a small-scale trial using a camera mounted on the Table of the House be conducted on a non-sitting day, involving a mock debate among volunteers from the House’s staff or during the next sitting of the UK Youth Parliament, or both. There should be no cost to the public purse of such a trial, beyond staff time; it should be conducted only if the broadcasters are willing to fund the technical costs.

17. Pictures obtained from such trials should not be broadcast, but should be used to consult political parties, the Government and the Opposition on whether such a camera would be a useful and desirable addition to what is already available.

18. If a trial proved successful and the House approved introduction of a table- mounted camera, the initial capital costs of the necessary infrastructure should also be borne by the broadcasters rather than the public purse. Future replacement and revenue costs could fall within the House’s own broadcasting budget. Types of shot 19. Even without the innovation of new camera angles, there are options for changing the range of shots presently provided to the broadcasters or for interpreting the existing rules differently. Since its creation, the Scottish Parliament has sought to offer a ‘gallery surrogate’ model of TV coverage of its proceedings: in other words, to try to replicate to some degree what someone sitting in the public gallery can see. Simon Mares of ITV suggested that the ‘staid’ existing rules meant that broadcasters could not offer viewers the full picture of what was happening in the Chamber all the time.8 Peter Knowles of the BBC, sitting at the witness table in front of us in Committee Room 16, explained: “If you think about this room and how we are arrayed, it is very formal and yet the way any one of us looks at another is not fixed. I am not fixed on your face the whole time. I am looking at other people around. The way the human eye and brain work is to take in the wider scene and other people’s reactions all the time”.9 Mr Knowles felt that the geography of the Chamber could be made clearer to TV viewers than the current restricted camera placements and selection of shots allows, and that the type and variety of shots in a broadcast matters: “People are much more likely to watch for longer if there is variety in the shots”.10

20. We are not convinced that the variety of pictures broadcast is particularly likely to prompt more people to watch broadcasts of our proceedings, or to do so for a longer time. Viewership has risen significantly during the past two years, but this is clearly driven by significant news events such as the Culture, Media and Sport Committee hearings involving Rupert and James Murdoch and the wider availability of broadcast over new platforms (see paragraph 38 below). Those who watch parliament on television are more likely to do so because of content than because of presentation.

21. To some extent, that greater variety of shots can be provided within the existing rules. John Angeli told us: “under the rules of coverage, we are allowed to show a head-and- shoulders shot, but actually what we show much of the time is a hips-waist-chest-shoulders

8 Q 1 9 Q 11 10 Q 9

Television: Rules of Coverage 7

and head shot. It is quite wide. I think that may partly be a throwback to when television was in 4:3 […] There is some scope for offering a slightly tighter shot without crossing the line at all”.11

22. The rules of coverage justify tighter shots of Members making speeches than is standard practice at present, and we support the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting in encouraging our TV directors to provide head and shoulders shots rather than the waist-upwards shots currently preferred.

23. It has been suggested that the rules might be further relaxed to allow for more cutaway shots during a Member’s speech. Esme Wren of Sky suggested that allowing more reaction shots would give viewers a greater impression of the atmosphere in the Chamber during a debate.12 Simon Mares also argued against the rule prohibiting close-up shots of Members speaking or reacting: “it strikes me that if you have a medium close-up, a wider shot and a close-up, then you have a wider variety of shots”.13 We are not convinced that more cutaway shots should be provided: the purpose of the broadcasts is to provide coverage of speeches, not varied pictures. Public gallery 24. ITV and the BBC have asked for limited relaxation of restrictions on filming the public gallery. At present, no shots of the public gallery are allowed, and there has been consistent concern that filming of the galleries might encourage protests or disruptions. The London Assembly’s rules of coverage allow shots of audience members referred to during discussions there.14 The physical layout of the Scottish Parliament means that the public gallery there is frequently in shot but early concern expressed by some MSPs that this would encourage protest or misbehaviour in the galleries has not proved justified over the past decade.15

25. The BBC and ITV asked us to consider allowing cutaway shots to the gallery to film individuals mentioned in debate in the Chamber, and Peter Knowles of the BBC offered recent examples of doorkeepers and other officials of the House who have sat in the galleries but not been shown on television as they were being praised or thanked for their service to the House.16 Mr William Turrell, a member of the public, also favoured occasional and carefully controlled shots of the public gallery, possibly of individuals on a list approved by Mr Speaker: “I think this approach would enhance parliamentary coverage, as a subtle but powerful reminder that it is the people’s parliament which anyone can attend in person, also showing the chamber in a refreshingly different, more positive light than that normally afforded by the ‘raucous’ atmosphere of PMQs and prevalent (though highly misleading) shots of half-empty benches during many debates”.17

11 Q 36 12 Q 1 13 Q 31 14 Ev 25 15 Ev 19-21 16 Q 1 17 Ev 17

8 Television: Rules of Coverage

26. John Angeli noted that any decision to allow filming in the public gallery would require permission to be granted in advance from Mr Speaker and probably need permission, too, from whoever it was who would be filmed. Control over any decision to shoot in the gallery would remain with the House in the TV control room at Millbank, not with the broadcast organisations.18 There is no reason, though, why a broadcast organisation producing a news piece which featured an individual could not use a still picture of the person in question.

27. Our predecessors in 2003 did not see any case for relaxing restrictions on showing the public galleries, and we, too, remain unconvinced that there is real value to the coverage of parliamentary proceedings in enabling this, even if it would provide a greater variety of pictures.19 As noted, a primary purpose of broadcasting is to provide an accurate record of proceedings, and it is worth recalling that neither interruptions from nor demonstrations in the galleries are proceedings of Parliament, no matter how interesting they would undoubtedly be to the media. We see no reason to relax restrictions on filming in the public galleries of the House. Parliamentary proceedings occur in the Chamber, Westminster Hall or Committee Rooms, not the galleries. Division lobbies 28. ITV argues that allowing divisions of the House to be filmed would provide both some public education about how votes in the House actually work and more interesting pictures for broadcast during the ‘dead’ 15 minutes or so when a vote occurs in the House. At present during divisions, the sound feed is cut off and the camera remains fixed on a single long shot of the Chamber. ITV suggest that sound and a wider variety of camera shots, including shots of Members entering and leaving the division lobbies, would help them convey the “drama and tension surrounding big votes”.20 Simon Mares said: “You do not see the Division. It is a bit like a Shakespearean play; it is all taking place off stage. We are all talking about something but we cannot see it”.21

29. Mr William Turrell also suggests that filming at least one division for educational purposes could help teach the public more about what happens during a vote in the Commons, making the perfectly fair point that the division process may be something of a mystery to anyone who has not themselves visited the Palace of Westminster and taken the tour through the lobbies.22 Mr Mares, too, suggested that filming divisions would help explain how one piece of Parliament’s procedure works.23

30. Esme Wren of Sky suggested that a fixed, locked camera in each division lobby, possibly without sound, could provide pictures that correspondents could use to explain to viewers what was happening during a vote in the House: “There is no move; there is no

18 Q 53 19 Broadcasting Committee, The Rules of coverage, First Report of Session 2002–03, HC 786, para 20 20 Ev 12 21 Q 20 22 Ev 18 23 Q 22

Television: Rules of Coverage 9

panning round; there is no particular recording of a conversation. It is a locked-off shot that just enables us to tell the story in better detail”.24

31. Our predecessors in 2003 argued that the introduction of additional shots during divisions would require the television director to make editorial decisions about who was shown.25 This remains a strong point: from our perspective the primary purposes of broadcasting from the Commons are the provision of open public access to parliamentary proceedings and a record of them. There is, from that perspective, nothing to be gained for the record of proceedings from filming divisions of the House. The TV director at Millbank would be required to focus on one or other lobby at any given time, and that would mean that some Members were filmed voting while others were not. Filming in the lobbies would also remove the prospect, popular with Back-Bench Members in particular, of snatching a comparatively private few minutes’ chat with a Minister or shadow during a division. These remain powerful arguments against doing so, certainly on a routine basis.

32. We see no reason to enable routine filming within the division lobbies during divisions of the House. To do so would add nothing to the record of proceedings provided by parliamentary broadcasting.

33. We do, however, see the merit in the idea that filming a division in progress might have some educational and explanatory value, and would support in principle the idea of filming a mocked-up division should the Parliament’s Education Service seek to do so. Paying for television coverage of Parliament 34. Until July 2011, the system was overseen by PARBUL—the Parliamentary Broadcast Unit Ltd, a company created during the initial experiment. The company was chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means (until 2010, this was our own Chair, who continued in the role as the company was wound down during 2011).26 Its board included members of both Houses, officials of both Houses and representatives of the major broadcast organisations, which also shared with the two Houses the cost of providing the broadcast pictures. This split-funding arrangement arose in 1989 because of the long-standing reluctance of Parliament to allow TV broadcasting. Peter Knowles of the BBC also told us that the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, an opponent of televising Parliament, had insisted that the broadcasters should pay.27

35. The broadcasters funded the cameras and control rooms for Chamber coverage and staffing costs for operators. Parliament funded the infrastructure costs, the provision of remote-control camera operation for Committee coverage, the sound systems and operators in the Chamber and most Committees, and the Parliamentary Recording Unit (PRU). All broadcasters who had access to the television feed from Westminster paid a fee.

24 Q 22 25 Broadcasting Committee, The Rules of coverage, First Report of Session 2002–03, HC 786, para 13 26 Erskine May, 24th edition, pp 140–41 27 Q 25

10 Television: Rules of Coverage

36. These arrangements were unusual in that parliamentary broadcasting in almost all other countries, and in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, was wholly funded by the parliament itself. Only two other countries had similar arrangements: India and Australia.28 The broadcasters let it be known during the original experiment that they were reluctant to contribute. The House argued that it was “not unreasonable to expect the broadcasters to make some contribution towards the cost of providing a service from which they themselves also derive benefits”.29

37. In 2009, the terrestrial channel, Five, announced that it would no longer participate or provide funding.30 The other broadcasters followed suit. Our predecessor Committee and the Finance and Services Committee in the previous Parliament accepted in January 2010 that the House itself should fully fund provision of the feed.31 Since August 2011, the two Houses have borne the total cost of providing the infrastructure and the pictures. The Commons share of that cost is about £600,000 a year; the Lords pays about £400,000.32 The TV control facilities at Millbank were due for refurbishment more than a year ago, but will not now be refurbished, at a cost of between £3 million and £4 million before 2013–14.33

38. There are advantages to the House from the ending of the PARBUL arrangement. The content now belongs entirely to the House, which may give it to any user who wants a licence. Since one of the objectives of parliamentary broadcasting is wider public access to parliamentary proceedings, this has clear advantages. The number of licences sought and provided has risen substantially since August 2011, and, for example, Liverpool Football Club was able to broadcast the House debate on the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 in a way that would not previously have been possible. Under the new arrangements UK and foreign media organisations are able to obtain a licence from Parliament which grants them access to a televised feed from the Commons and Lords Chambers and Westminster Hall. The number of licences rose from 25 to more than 100 in the period from August 2011 until February 2012. These included licences granted to Al Jazeera, Agence France Presse, The Hansard Society, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Spectator, The Independent, The Times and Daily Mail. Parliament continues to charge for televised coverage of committees, based on requests from media organisations.34

39. In addition, web views of Commons Chamber coverage rose from 287,000 in 2010 to 659,000 in 2011, and Committee views from 195,000 in 2010 to 604,000 in 2011. To some degree, this is due to events—the select committee hearing with Rupert and James Murdoch, for example—but the ability to provide the feed more widely improves public access. Mr Angeli told us that his priorities for the coming year include ensuring that more

28 Letter from Peter Knowles to the Chairman of PARBUL, 28 September 2009 29 Broadcasting Committee, The arrangements for the permanent televising of the proceedings of the House, First Report of Session 1990–91, HC 11, para 26 30 Qq 25 and 28 31 Although the House fully funds broadcast of proceedings, it is worth recalling that the broadcasters have their own costs of transmission: Peter Knowles of the BBC told us, at Q24, that broadcasting BBC Parliament on freeview costs the corporation between £5 million and £8 million annually 32 Information provided to the Committee by the Director of Broadcasting 33 Qq 44 and 46 34 Ev 15

Television: Rules of Coverage 11

coverage of all select committees is available and that local and regional media in particular have greater opportunities to access content for use online.35 Recommendations for changes to the rules 40. The rules were framed from the start in a restrictive way on the basis that it would be easier to relax them than to introduce restrictions once broadcasting had become a part of the parliamentary landscape. The Select Committee that drafted them in 1989 made it clear that “these were rules for the start of the experiment and that we were ready to consider any reasonable approaches seeking modification”.36 Control of the shots broadcast remains with the House: even if a more relaxed approach were taken to what might be shot, the choice of individual shots to be broadcast remains with the House’s contracted television director in the Millbank control room, under responsibility of the Director of Broadcasting. Interpretation of the rules also remains within the House’s control.

41. We propose the following amendments to the rules of coverage. Annex 2 to this Report sets out the rules as they would stand if all these changes were adopted.

42. Section 1 of the rules contains a mission statement for the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting and the individual TV directors under his guidance. We seek to amend the first paragraph to give the full, current title of the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting (instead of Director of Broadcasting, as at present), and we seek to shorten the second paragraph, removing a reference to the “dignity of the House” while still making the point that the director on duty should seek to maintain the integrity of the House’s proceedings. Our new version of paragraph 2 would read: “The director should have regard to the integrity of the House and its function as a working body”.

43. Section 2 of the rules sets out guidelines on picture direction, and paragraph (a) lists four sets of restrictions, all of which, with some slight updating and amending of language, should remain in place.

44. ITV argues in favour of simplification of Section 2(b), which lists particular types of shot that may or may not be shown: Simon Mares told us that the House gives its Director of Broadcasting “good, strong guidance” in the broad mission statement heading the rules of coverage in section 1, but then lists prescriptive rules and restrictions. In particular, ITV suggests scrapping the following rules: 2(b) (i), (iii), (vi) and (vii). In all cases, these rules set down specific guidance for the director in the control room; arguably, the principles set out in those specific rules are already embedded in the statement contained in sub- paragraph (ii), that “the camera should normally remain on the Member speaking”. This comes down simply to a question of whether it is necessary to set out prescriptive instructions or trust to the directors employed by the House itself to maintain their spirit. In line with the original expectation in 1989 that the rules might be relaxed once broadcasting had become the norm, we believe the time has come to leave such matters largely to the judgment of the director on duty in the control room.

35 Q 40 36 Select Committee on televising of proceedings of the House, Review of the experiment in televising the proceedings of the House, First Report of Session 1989–90, HC 265–i, para 80

12 Television: Rules of Coverage

45. Section 2 (c) sets out the use of camera techniques including split screens, panning shots and zoom shots. ITV suggests that it is unnecessary, and we see some merit in that argument. Split screen shots remain needless and should continue to be forbidden, but the existing rules on panning shots and zoom shots seem to us redundant. The former should not ‘normally’ be used and the latter is ‘occasionally’ permitted; in both cases, therefore, the use of such shots is already a matter of judgment for the director in the control room, and removing the rules from the list makes no practical change.

46. Section 3 deals with the treatment of disorder, on the principle that interruptions and demonstrations should not be filmed and that the camera should cut to a shot of the Chair if disorder occurs on the Floor of the House. We see no justification for altering those rules.

47. Sections 4, 5 and 6 cover Westminster Hall, Select Committees and General Committees. Broadly, the same rules apply as in the Chamber, and the deletions we propose by uniting those rules into a single section merely remove sentences repeating rules already made in sections 1, 2 and 3. No practical alteration would result from simplifying the language in this way.

48. Our proposals would make small, practical changes to the way in which Parliament is broadcast on television but which could, we believe, make coverage of the work done by the House and its committees a little more relaxed, a little more modern in look and a little more appealing to the average viewer while retaining the central and essential principle that the broadcasts accurately portray our proceedings fully and transparently for public information and for the record.

49. We recommend that the House be invited to approve the amended rules of coverage for television broadcast set out in annex 2 to this Report.

Television: Rules of Coverage 13

Annex 1: rules of coverage

The rules, as amended in 2006, are set out below:

The following rules apply to the television coverage of official proceedings of Parliament.

1. Statement of objectives

The director should seek, in close collaboration with the Director of Broadcasting, to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House.

(It is noted that the director should have regard to the dignity of the House and to its function as a working body rather than a place of entertainment.)

2. Specific guidelines for picture direction

a) Restriction of Filming Certain Parts of Chamber, etc.

i) The press and public galleries, the officials’ and visitors’ boxes, and the area behind the Speaker’s Chair, not being directly related to proceedings, should not be shown, other than unavoidably as part of wide-angle or other authorised shots of the Chamber.

ii) Great care should be exercised in showing the occupant of the Chair. Shots designed to show the Speaker receiving advice from a Clerk at the Table should not be used. Officers of the House and Doorkeepers attending in the Chamber should not normally be shown, unless they are taking an active part in the proceedings.

iii) During Divisions, a wide-angle shot of the Chamber may be used. In addition, the following events relating to Divisions may be shown using the standard format described in sub-paragraph 2.(b)(i): the putting of the Question, both initially and after the two minute interval; the announcement of the names of the Tellers; any points of order which may arise, together with any response by the Chair; and the announcement by the Tellers and the Chair of the voting figures.

iv) In no circumstances should close-up shots of Members’ or Officers’ papers be taken.

b) Style and Presentation

i) The standard format for depicting the Member who has the floor should be a head and shoulders shot, not a close-up.

ii) Subject to sub-paragraphs (iii) to (vii) below, the camera should normally remain on the Member speaking until he or she has finished.

iii) Wide-angle shots of the Chamber may be used from time to time: for example, while the director is seeking a closer shot of a Member who has just been called, at times when no single Member has the floor, and to establish the geography of the House for the benefit of viewers.

14 Television: Rules of Coverage

iv) As a matter of general practice, the director should switch to a picture of the occupant of the Chair whenever he or she rises; this principle should be applied all the more strictly during incidents of disorder or altercations between Chair and other Members.

v) Occasional cut-away shots to illustrate individual reactions are allowed, usually to show a Member who has been referred to by the Member speaking.

vi) Medium-angle shots, including over-the-shoulder shots, are permissible where the director wishes to show both the Member who has the floor and another Member intervening or seeking to do so.

vii) Occasional group shots—mid-way between the standard head and shoulders shot and the wide-angle shot—are permitted; such shots may be used either for the purposes of showing the reaction of a group of Members, or in order to establish the geography of a particular part of the Chamber.

c) Special Camera Techniques

i) In no circumstances are split-screen shots to be used.

ii) Panning shots along the benches should not normally be used.

iii) Occasional zoom shots are permitted.

3. Treatment of disorder

a) Disorder in the Galleries

i) Neither interruptions from, nor demonstrations in, the galleries are “Proceedings”, and as such they should in no circumstances be televised.

ii) If an incident of the sort described in sub-paragraph (i) above occurs in such a way as to interfere with an otherwise permissible shot, the director should cut either to a wide-angle shot of the Chamber which does not show the offending incident, or to the occupant of the Chair.

b) Disorder on the Floor of the House

Televising may continue during incidents of grave disorder or unparliamentary behaviour for as long as the sitting continues, but only subject to the following guidelines:

i) On occasions of grave disorder, the director should normally focus on the occupant of the Chair for as long as proceedings continue, or until order has been restored. (By “grave disorder” is meant incidents of individual, but more likely collective, misconduct of such a serious disruptive nature as to place in jeopardy the continuation of the sitting.)

ii) In cases of unparliamentary behaviour, the director should normally focus on the occupant of the Chair, and should certainly do so if he or she rises, but occasional wide-angle shots of the Chamber are acceptable. (The phrase

Television: Rules of Coverage 15

“unparliamentary behaviour” is intended to signify any conduct which amounts to defiance of the Chair but which falls short of grave disorder.)

4. Westminster Hall

The rules of coverage for the Chamber shall be applied.

5. Select Committees

The rules of coverage for the Chamber shall be applied, except that:

i) Reaction shots should be limited to Members to whom a clear reference has been made or who have asked a question of a witness.

ii) Reaction of the public gallery should not be shown.

iii) Committee staff, the press, and shorthand writers should not be shown other than unavoidably as part of another authorised shot.

iv) No close-up shots of Members’ or officials’ papers should be taken.

6. Standing Committees

The rules of coverage for the Chamber shall be applied. Officials attending Ministers should not be shown.

16 Television: Rules of Coverage

Annex 2: amended rules of coverage

The changes that we suggest in the body of the Report would result in the rules set out below.

The following rules apply to the television coverage of official proceedings of Parliament.

1. Statement of objectives

The director should seek, in close collaboration with the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting, to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House.

The director should have regard to the integrity of the House and its function as a working body.

2. Specific guidelines for picture direction

a) Restriction of Filming Certain Parts of Chamber, etc.

i) The press and public galleries, the officials’ and visitors’ boxes, and the area behind the Speaker’s Chair, not being directly related to proceedings, should not be shown, other than unavoidably as part of authorised shots of the Chamber.

ii) Great care should be exercised in showing the occupant of the Chair. Staff of the House should not normally be shown, unless they are taking an active part in the proceedings, or unavoidably as part of an authorised shot.

iii) During Divisions, a wide-angle shot of the Chamber may be used. In addition, the following events relating to Divisions may be shown using the standard format described in sub-paragraph 2(b): the putting of the Question, both initially and after the two-minute interval; the announcement of the names of the Tellers; any points of order which may arise, together with any response by the Chair; and the announcement by the Tellers and the Chair of the voting figures.

iv) In no circumstances should close-up shots of Members’ or officials’ papers be taken.

b) Style and Presentation

i) The standard format for depicting the Member who has the floor should be a head and shoulders shot, not a close-up.

ii) The camera should normally remain on the Member speaking until he or she has finished.

iii) The director should switch to a picture of the occupant of the Chair whenever he or she rises; this principle should be applied all the more strictly during incidents of disorder or altercations between Chair and other Members.

Television: Rules of Coverage 17

iv) Occasional cut-away shots to illustrate individual reactions are allowed, usually to show a Member who has been referred to by the Member speaking.

c) Special Camera Techniques

i) In no circumstances are split-screen shots to be used.

3. Treatment of disorder

a) Disorder in the Galleries

i) Neither interruptions from, nor demonstrations in, the galleries are “Proceedings”, and as such they should in no circumstances be televised.

ii) If an incident of the sort described in sub-paragraph (i) above occurs in such a way as to interfere with an otherwise permissible shot, the director should cut either to a wide-angle shot of the Chamber which does not show the offending incident, or to the occupant of the Chair.

b) Disorder on the Floor of the House

Televising may continue during incidents of grave disorder or unparliamentary behaviour for as long as the sitting continues, but only subject to the following guidelines:

i) On occasions of grave disorder, the director should normally focus on the occupant of the Chair for as long as proceedings continue, or until order has been restored. (By “grave disorder” is meant incidents of individual, but more likely collective, misconduct of such a serious disruptive nature as to place in jeopardy the continuation of the sitting.)

ii) In cases of unparliamentary behaviour, the director should normally focus on the occupant of the Chair, and should certainly do so if he or she rises, but occasional wide-angle shots of the Chamber are acceptable. (The phrase “unparliamentary behaviour” is intended to signify any conduct which amounts to defiance of the Chair but which falls short of grave disorder.)

4. Westminster Hall, Select Committees and General Committees

The rules of coverage for the Chamber shall be applied.

Reaction of the public gallery should not be shown, other than unavoidably as part of an authorised shot. Officials attending Ministers should not be shown, except unavoidably as part of an authorised shot.

18 Television: Rules of Coverage

Conclusions and recommendations

1. The maintenance of a proper record of proceedings is a primary objective of parliamentary broadcasting. The central principle guiding parliamentary broadcast must remain that the Member speaking is wholly or largely the focus of any broadcast. (Paragraph 9)

2. We recommend that a small-scale trial using a camera mounted on the Table of the House be conducted on a non-sitting day, involving a mock debate among volunteers from the House’s staff or during the next sitting of the UK Youth Parliament, or both. There should be no cost to the public purse of such a trial, beyond staff time; it should be conducted only if the broadcasters are willing to fund the technical costs. (Paragraph 16)

3. Pictures obtained from such trials should not be broadcast, but should be used to consult political parties, the Government and the Opposition on whether such a camera would be a useful and desirable addition to what is already available. (Paragraph 17)

4. If a trial proved successful and the House approved introduction of a table-mounted camera, the initial capital costs of the necessary infrastructure should also be borne by the broadcasters rather than the public purse. Future replacement and revenue costs could fall within the House’s own broadcasting budget. (Paragraph 18)

5. The rules of coverage justify tighter shots of Members making speeches than is standard practice at present, and we support the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting in encouraging our TV directors to provide head and shoulders shots rather than the waist-upwards shots currently preferred. (Paragraph 22)

6. We are not convinced that more cutaway shots should be provided: the purpose of the broadcasts is to provide coverage of speeches, not varied pictures. (Paragraph 23)

7. We see no reason to relax restrictions on filming in the public galleries of the House. Parliamentary proceedings occur in the Chamber, Westminster Hall or Committee Rooms, not the galleries. (Paragraph 27)

8. We see no reason to enable routine filming within the division lobbies during divisions of the House. To do so would add nothing to the record of proceedings provided by parliamentary broadcasting. (Paragraph 32)

9. We do, however, see the merit in the idea that filming a division in progress might have some educational and explanatory value, and would support in principle the idea of filming a mocked-up division should the Parliament’s Education Service seek to do so. (Paragraph 33)

10. Our proposals would make small, practical changes to the way in which Parliament is broadcast on television but which could, we believe, make coverage of the work done by the House and its committees a little more relaxed, a little more modern in look and a little more appealing to the average viewer while retaining the central and

Television: Rules of Coverage 19

essential principle that the broadcasts accurately portray our proceedings fully and transparently for public information and for the record. (Paragraph 48)

11. We recommend that the House be invited to approve the amended rules of coverage for television broadcast set out in annex 2 to this Report. (Paragraph 49)

20 Television: Rules of Coverage

Formal Minutes

Monday 21 May 2012

Members present:

Sir Alan Haselhurst, in the Chair

Rosie Cooper Dr Phillip Lee Thomas Docherty Nigel Mills Graham Evans Mr John Spellar Mark Francois Dave Watts Simon Kirby

Television: rules of coverage

The Committee considered informally the Chair’s draft Report.

Draft Report (Television: rules of coverage), proposed by the Chair, brought up and Read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 49 read and agreed to.

Annexes agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, along with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on 5 March 2012.

[Adjourned till Monday 11 June at 4.30 pm

Television: Rules of Coverage 21

Witnesses

Monday 20 February 2012 Page

Peter Knowles, BBC, Simon Mares, ITV and Esme Wren, BSkyB Ev 1

John Angeli, Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting Ev 9

22 Television: Rules of Coverage

List of written evidence

1 ITV News Ev w12 2 ITN Ev w13 3 Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting Ev w15 4 BBC Ev w17 5 William Turrell Ev w17 6 The Scottish Parliament Ev w19 7 National Assembly for Wales Ev w21 8 Bow Tie Television, Greater London Authority Ev w25

Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Administration Committee on Monday 20 February 2012

Members present: Sir Alan Haselhurst (Chair)

Rosie Cooper Nigel Mills Thomas Docherty Sarah Newton Graham Evans Mr John Spellar Simon Kirby Mr Dave Watts Dr Phillip Lee ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Peter Knowles, BBC, Simon Mares, ITV, and Esme Wren, BSkyB, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Good afternoon. Thank you very much camera angles, which would get to the face of those indeed for making time to come and see us to give on the Front Benches. It is not a problem for anybody evidence in our mini inquiry or light-touch inquiry not on the two Front Benches; the angles are fine. It into the question of the Rules of Coverage. We have is an absolutely physical point as to the angle of sight had some written evidence but not necessarily from for the cameras. yourselves, although I think from ITV, but not from In the four-point submission that you were meant to Sky or from the BBC, so would you wish to make have received we were also interested in whether it any short statement beforehand? was possible, in very limited circumstances, to see Peter Knowles: I would be happy to. Thank you visitors in the visitors’ galleries when they are named very much. from the Floor because, several times recently, we Chair: Thank you. I will then go to Esme and, Simon, have had doormen and other officials of the House, you can add anything, if you want, which is not who have been retiring, who have been there with already before us. their families being thanked for their work from the Peter Knowles: Thank you, Sir Alan. Our position is Floor. It has been very strange that the camera cannot that we like the way coverage is done at Parliament. then look to them. I understand the point that the We think it works for the viewer; we think it is Public Gallery, apart from any other considerations helpful; it achieves its objectives, but we can see ways you might have, is thoroughly behind glass, so even of making it better. We have a good starting point, if you wished it to be seen it probably could not be, rather than one where we see the current arrangements so this is a very specific thought about the other as being a terrible problem. The ability to understand visitors’ galleries. the geography of the Chamber and what is going on The fourth and final point is as to whether we could in the debate would be improved, I think, if the Rules give any consideration to some kind of access on a of Coverage were less prescriptive in terms of what trial basis, or just as a one-off for filming for can be shown by way of listening shots. They are very educational purposes to get us started, to see the detailed with more “don’ts” than “dos”. What we have Members going through the Division Lobbies, past the found over the years is that the directors, who work tellers. There is a gap in understanding as to how to the Director of Broadcasting, who is sitting behind Parliament works, so there is a case for one-off access me, and to your control, actually show great good for educational purposes. Beyond that, there would be sense in how they operate to those rules, and I think value in actually having that movement and that they could be given more freedom without in any way action at a time when, for example, one of the main infringing on the dignity of Parliament, but in a way news bulletins was reporting a close Division in its that would actually help the viewer to understand main story, whereas at the moment, as you know, the what is going on in the debate and the relationship coverage is the wide shot with very subdued sound. I between the different parts of the Chamber. do understand that there are huge sensitivities around On a specific issue, I need to follow up on whether access to the Division Lobbies, but I wonder if it is we had not supplied any submission, because I possible to consider some form of access to them. thought that you had received a four-pointer from us. Esme Wren: On many of those points, Sky agrees. I will run through those four points in a moment. The The main thing for us is just trying to make the second issue, as we have discussed before, Sir Alan, is exchanges in the Chamber more accessible, more that the camera angles in the Chamber are incredibly compelling and to bring in a younger, newer audience unflattering to the occupants of the two Front Benches to watch things such as PMQs, statements or debates. because they are so high, which means that the Front I would definitely concur that the shot that we are Benchers are seen mainly from the top of their given at the moment from the two Front Benches is foreheads and top of their heads. That is not a great not quite adequate. It is quite hard to be drawn in for look for many of us. We would suggest that it would some time when you are looking down on somebody. be a very good idea to explore the possibility of other It is nice to see a good eye-to-eye exchange between Ev 2 Administration Committee: Evidence

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren the two contenders, so we support what our colleagues Q3 Thomas Docherty: If I understand you correctly, have said in their statements. you would like us to spend approaching £50,000 of Secondly, the other thing that we would be very keen taxpayers’ money in order to make, as it would appear to get is more reaction—it tells you more about the to some people, our Front Benchers look better. Is that atmosphere of the Chamber when there is a debate— a fair assessment of what you are actually asking us and more listening shots. Of course, the main focus to do? You are not offering to pay the £50,000 costs would always be the person speaking. We would not of doing this, are you? want to take away from that, because that obviously Simon Mares: No, we are not. is eventually or ultimately what we use in the broadcast, but, just to give it some sort of context, it Q4 Thomas Docherty: You have already stopped would be useful to get some wider pictures from the paying half the costs of running PARBUL. You would Back Benches too. now like us to find another £50,000. Would you accept The third point is the visitors’ galleries. If there is a that some of your print colleagues may find this to be special mention, as there was in December of the an interesting Sunday story, if we were to agree to guard who was retiring having served many years in do this? the Houses, we could have done a nice feature on that Simon Mares: When you have a budget for televising if we could have seen him and put it on a different material or whatever, you have a repairs and renewal platform, not necessarily on television, but a nice bit of it. You do not set things up and never change online piece. That is another way of bringing a wider them. audience into what is happening in Parliament. On those three points we agree. Unusually, I think all Q5 Thomas Docherty: I know, but we have to find three of us are singing from the same hymn sheet. another £1 million, because you guys pulled out of Simon Mares: Esme took the words right out of my paying half the cost of running the Broadcast Unit. mouth. I was going to say I think we are singing from Simon Mares: I was not involved in that decision. the same hymn sheet. We all have an interest in getting as much Parliament on television as possible, Q6 Thomas Docherty: The broadcasters pulled out and we want the shots to be as interesting, within the and now you want us to find another £50,000, rules and the guidelines that are laid down, as effectively, it would appear to some people— possible. I have to say I have given the written obviously I would say that certainly our Front Bench evidence; I am quite happy to take questions on it. does not need any help at all—to make our Front Benchers look better. That fundamentally is what you are asking us to do. Q2 Chair: What would you believe to be the Simon Mares: Is it to look better or is it the fact that, advantage to the viewer beyond what you have said at the moment, as we have said, the geography of the generally about the coverage being better? Does that Chamber is such that we get shots of tops of heads? matter? The number of viewers seems to be rising Peter Knowles: On the point of looking better, there satisfactorily. Isn’t that enough? Aren’t we providing is a very simple point to be made here that, if you a sufficient account of what is going on, so that to are hard of hearing, you find it incredibly difficult to change in any way, to enhance, is not going to lead to understand what people are saying if you cannot see chasing the ratings or anything like that? their mouths and faces. That is actually how people Simon Mares: I think you are looking for a better who are hard of hearing listen. view of what actually goes on in the Chamber. At the Rosie Cooper: Absolutely and you just— moment, because of the angles that are used and the Chair: Rosie, sorry; you are not in order. slightly—how can one put it?—staid guidelines, you do not get a proper representation of what goes on in Q7 Thomas Docherty: I understand that argument, the Chamber. I would not say we are misleading the but do you not accept that some of your print or, viewers, but we are not giving them the full picture. indeed, new media colleagues will see this as MPs What we are saying is we would like to give them the spending up to £50,000 of taxpayers’ money on full picture. One of my colleagues did comment that making themselves look better? You are not saying everything evolves over time, and these rules were that you are going to pay this. You want the House laid down in 2003. It does look a bit dated now. When authorities to find another £50,000 to do this. Is that you look at everything else that is being covered and correct? Do you want the House to find the money to going on, you suddenly take a step back in time when do this? you come to the coverage of the Commons. Perhaps Peter Knowles: The budget for the cameras and the we ought just to be looking, refreshing and renewing, infrastructure around them has been with Parliament and looking at whether, from experience, we can for very many years, going back at least 10 years— change and tweak. Like my colleagues, we want to not 20 but around 10 or more. I do recognise the point focus on the person who is speaking; we do not want you are making, and I do see that any expenditure by the camera roving around all the time. We just want a MPs or by Parliament can be picked up and criticised wider selection of shots so that interest can be by people of ill will. It can happen. You have invited maintained. On your point about increasing viewing us to respond to your inquiry, and the question behind figures, we have had a lot more Urgent Questions your inquiry is if there is a way of doing this better. recently, which makes the Chamber much more Actually, we can see a way of doing this better. You immediately relevant, which is why people are tuning have jumped to the endpoint, which is how much it in and we want to keep them tuning in as well. would actually cost. What we are saying is more Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 3

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren open-ended than that: is there a way in which you can that quite hard. We run out the clips. On things like use your cameras differently to get a better angle, so our online service and iPad we are trying to do a lot that we can actually see the faces of the Front more with streaming than we ever had, because we Benchers? have these new platforms. We do not have the channels that BBC has, but I would say we probably Q8 Sarah Newton: On that very subject of using are running more Select Committee coverage than we cameras better to help communicate the work of have previously. Parliament, I think we all have a big interest in this to Peter Knowles: If I might add to that, it is not just make sure that people are better understanding Fridays, but Mondays and Thursdays. If there was a Parliament. Obviously you have a really important better spread of the Committee hearings Monday to role to play in enabling us to do that. One of the Thursday that would be really helpful. As for submissions was about Committees. Obviously in this Westminster Hall debates, I am not sure what the Parliament, Select Committees have a lot more clout. solution is there, but what has been really interesting They have independent Chairmen and elected people to observe is the ability of the Backbench Business going on to them. Some of the really interesting work Committee to raise and deliver topics that have really for the public is done on Select Committees, but they caught the imagination, where there has been a terrific are not always broadcast. Also the other Chamber, speakers’ list of people wanting to take part, very sometimes for constituents or the regional news, is interesting topics and terrific audiences to follow. So more important than the Main Chamber because it can be done. I have not come to this session with a individual Members of Parliament or groups of particular recommendation or solution for Members of Parliament can raise something that is Westminster Hall debates, which can often get vitally important to their region or city, for example ignored—you are absolutely right—but it is coastguards are vital to all the coastal communities. I interesting seeing what BBCom has done in terms of would really like you to give us an opportunity to thinking things can be different. listen to how we can better improve, with existing resources, the cameras that we already have. Perhaps Q9 Chair: Taking up what you have just said, Peter, if you wanted to bring in extra cameras for certain is the viewer reaction to Parliament perhaps related as meetings, how do you feel we could improve the much to the topics being discussed at particular times, broadcast output of Select Committees and rather than the need to see a fancier or more Westminster Hall debates? imaginative way of displaying the proceedings? Peter Knowles: Thank you. There is one significant Peter Knowles: I am sure that is right. I am sure the constraint on Select Committees’ coverage, which is story comes first, and the innovation of Urgent that they cluster around each other in terms of when Questions that Simon referred to is, without a doubt, they meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. That brings the biggest and most positive change that we have with it a number of problems. There is a practical seen, where the news agenda for the day and problem in that the infrastructure only supports Parliament’s agenda for the day are coinciding far coverage of four Committees at the same time. more often in a very interesting way, and that is being Actually, even if that was solved and there was reported. It means there are parliamentary actualities infrastructure to film five at the same time, there is in the news bulletins and that the BBC News channel only so much space in the news bulletins that can be is going over to Parliament far more often than it ever given over to political stories of a certain kind. In did. Instead of the viewer getting the sense that terms of on-the-day coverage, I am not convinced Parliament is Prime Minister’s Questions and that is that, if there were five Select Committee set-ups, you it, it is a very different feel. You are absolutely right, would get a proportionate increase in coverage. The Sir Alan, that the story comes first, which is what we airtimes of Today in Parliament and Yesterday in are talking about there, but following on from that Parliament are all fixed. The biggest difference from does it matter how the shots are delivered? Yes, it my point of view that would be made is if it was does. People are much more likely to watch for longer possible for the Select Committees to move back if there is variety in the shots. After all, in terms of towards the position they were in a few years ago, a slightly more liberal use of listening shots, that is when their meetings spread more widely across the something that would not cost a bean. That is a matter week. That would make a huge difference to coverage. of direction using the cameras that already exist. The I realise there are all sorts of reasons and pressures point about the Front Benches and additional or new that push them together in the middle of the week, but cameras for those is more a very straightforward any teasing apart of that would be helpful. argument: we know that you cannot see the Front Esme Wren: I especially agree with, let us say, a Benches terribly well for so much of the time, and Friday, when the regional radio stations that we that is an issue for the viewer. service may have more space in their bulletins, when the general news agenda—it is a bit of a Q10 Mr Watts: On my colleague’s point of view, it presumption—seems to be slightly different, so taking may well be that, if the brief was given to you some something from a Select Committee actually would be time before the austerity measures started to come in, of greater interest. That would be pushed harder. We it is bad timing, in a sense. It would be very difficult always go through the listings and send out to our to justify spending this sort of money at a time when IRN contract people who is appearing and whether it other things are being cut left, right and centre. is a local MP on a subject that they may be interested Specifically about the camera shot in the Gallery, there in. You suggested the coastguard story; we did push is a particular reason why the Speaker always says Ev 4 Administration Committee: Evidence

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren you are not supposed to refer to anyone in the Gallery be desirable from a broadcaster’s point of view but because, if that happened, it is more likely that, over not perhaps from a taxpayers’ point of view. a period of time, you would get a Gallery that may Chair: You are straying into deliberation territory, as react and want to see itself as a demonstration or opposed to questioning the witnesses. whatever might happen. If you start down that road of actually shooting into the Gallery, you may well find Q12 Dr Lee: Can I say that I disagree with my out that people will name individuals, groups or colleagues? I think £50,000, in the scheme of things, campaigns, and then you will have a reaction in the is a relatively small amount of money to engage the Gallery that is not what Parliament intended when it public more in the political process. I totally get what televised first. I would be interested to hear your view you think about creating a change of images; I think on that point. it is more than justifiable, particularly in view of some Peter Knowles: I can understand your line of of the things we spend our money on in the reasoning. This is something that is still entirely under parliamentary estate. I would like to put that on your control through your Director of Broadcasting. record. Mine is more of a suggestion really. What I These are your cameras; your people are working have noticed, in the short time I have been here, is through a sub-contracted company. If you were that some wonderful speeches have been made that unhappy with the way in which rules are being have not got any coverage. Invariably they have been interpreted, and everything is in the interpretation, made by new Members, because there are quite a lot then it would be very easy to rack back on that. Would of new Members, who are down the pecking order demonstrations be likely, not in the Public Gallery but because they are new Members in the Chamber. I can in the visitors’ galleries? I would be surprised if that think of—and forgive me, these are both became a problem, but I think it would be easy Conservatives—one by Kris Hopkins in the Chamber enough for you to take control of that problem. on the Libya debate, and another one by Bob Stewart in a Westminster Hall debate about genocide, because Q11 Graham Evans: I can see exactly where you are Bob had been in the Balkans. Both of those speeches, coming from. You want to be able to do something I suspect, were missed by a great majority of the general public. like a real-life docu-drama. I understand where you are coming from in modern media filming techniques, I wonder whether it is possible or feasible, via various different platforms, to have a greatest hits of the week, but could you point to a similar democracy, a similar almost like a trawl through all of the speeches. You Parliament, where they have a televised camera can make the decision, of course, on those speeches situation similar to what you are asking for? Can you that perhaps need a bit more of an airing. I say this tell me of a country’s parliament that is open to what because I think that some very interesting people have you are requesting or requiring? come in, and the public, in an effort to try to get them Peter Knowles: I cannot specify one, but the scope to trust and respect Parliament more, needs to know here is a very free range. At the one end of the that some very bright, able and experienced spectrum, far more constrained than we are here, is individuals make good speeches on issues. It does not the US Senate, which is very poorly attended and really fit in, because what tends to happen, say there where shots are still on the head and shoulders, which is an Urgent Question on foreign policy, is you get the is where broadcasting started life in the Commons. Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Foreign Secretary, That is one end of the spectrum. I do not know of and then you get all the other former Foreign anywhere that is a free-for-all—they all do have rules Secretaries. of coverage—but Holyrood has a more natural feel, Chair: Phillip, I should just say that is not a Rules of which is what we are describing in terms of listening Coverage question. It is slightly outside the scope. shots. If you think about this room and how we are arrayed, it is very formal and yet the way any one of Q13 Dr Lee: Allow me some latitude, Chair. What I us looks at another is not fixed. I am not fixed on am trying to suggest here is that, in getting more your face the whole time. I am looking at other people access, at the same time in return can we have more around. The way the human eye and brain work is to coverage of speeches that perhaps do not get take in the wider scene and other people’s reactions broadcast? Is that fair enough? all the time. It is a very unnatural viewing experience Chair: Marginally, yes. to be locked off on the person who is speaking and Peter Knowles: Could I now briefly respond? Dr Lee, only them. We are not locked off as it is, but we are we try to get the best, most interesting and most advocating another step or two down that road to significant speeches of the day into our daily reports— seeing the Chamber as you would if you were in the our half-hour Today in Parliament and the equivalent Public Gallery, with people responding to each other. programme on BBC Parliament. We do not always Graham Evans: A point just made there is that the succeed; things do get missed or some days become world’s biggest democracy, the United States of so super-busy that, with the best will in the world, America, has very limited access to the media and, we cannot deal with it. What we try to do is use our other than Holyrood, which is relatively recent, there week-ending programmes. We have Today in is no other Parliament in the democratic world that Parliament on a Friday and The Record Review on a actually has what these gentlemen are asking for. I Friday on BBC Parliament to help us mop up the best tend to agree with some of my colleagues here, of what has happened. Sometimes we are conscious pointing at this particular time, Chairman, with the that we have missed something and will make a economic situation. It is perhaps something that may conscious effort to get to it at the end of the week. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 5

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren

You are right about the quality of speeches from the House, than thinking, “We’d better get a clip as well new intake. I would agree wholeheartedly with that. because the shot isn’t as good.” The point I was trying to make there was that it would hopefully put the Q14 Sarah Newton: This is just a quick question, House back in the centre of issues, rather than, as you because I have already had a chance. We need to go say, covering an announcement out of the House. back to the other platforms, because more and more people are actually listening to local radio or going Q16 Nigel Mills: On a different topic, when you are online. Even newspapers have online content. Are all doing sports coverage you have all manner of there any issues about the material that you are able wonderful gizmo cameras stuck in ever smaller to receive from Parliament now that are specific to places. Do you actually think, between you, you have that format? Most of our conversations have been the technology so you can find a camera small enough about TV broadcasting. Certainly we have talked to give you the quality of picture, which you can about radio, I appreciate, but for the online content, sneak somewhere it will not disrupt other things, or are there any things you want us to think about in do you think this is a difficult thing to achieve? improving what Parliament gives to you to improve Peter Knowles: I do not think it is a difficult thing to that online access? achieve in terms of the Front Benches. I think it is a Simon Mares: The general point has been made about matter of positioning the cameras rather than anything the style and everything, but I would add that we are that is extraordinarily high-tech like the camera in the planning a major relaunch of our online offer. I am cricket stumps. I doubt if we are going that way, but hoping that that would be able to pick up the point I know you are going to be hearing from your Director that Dr Lee made. There is so much going on and of Broadcasting in the next part of this session, and I sometimes it is an issue of timing. If it happens after bow to his judgment as to what might be a way of our main local regional programmes at six o’clock, achieving this. we are then looking at 24 hours’ time. In terms of the immediacy of news, it is difficult. If we have an online Q17 Thomas Docherty: On this idea of filming the position where we can highlight and direct people, Division Lobbies, I am assuming, first of all, that you “This is something, if you are interested in… This is mean the exits to the two Division Lobbies and are something you should be looking at. How about not talking about putting a camera into the Division looking at this speech or that speech?” I would hope Lobbies. Is that correct? that we would be able to do that. You are quite right; Simon Mares: That is what I asked for, yes. It would there are a lot of gems that get rushed past and not be lovely to have one in the Division Lobby, but I did spotted. not think I was going to get it, so I was not going Esme Wren: I was just going to add to that that often to ask. Sky originally would just take a clip of a speech or something like that, but now, as Simon was saying, Q18 Thomas Docherty: I do not know if you are we now say, “You can continue to watch that on the familiar with the area behind the Speaker’s Chair and iPad,” where we could continuously live-stream the area at the entrance. It is fair to say that they are something. Somebody in the audience would stick relatively busy during a Division. Could you again with it for much longer if they could get a better shot clarify, for my mind, whether you are talking about of that person and actually see them speaking. That having a camera that hangs from the ceiling or a would improve the coverage for that. cameraman, first of all? Simon Mares: I would have thought a camera Q15 Nigel Mills: We spend a lot of time here wishing hanging from a ceiling, if we are looking at doing it the Government would make more announcements to more than once or twice. I would have thought you Parliament and less directly to you guys out on the would not be looking at putting in the capital green or somewhere else. As attractive as ITV’s investment to install the equipment if it was just an evidence is that, if you had this better shot, you would experiment that you might then decide you do not be more inclined to show the announcement being want. It might be that, while you are trialling it, you made to Parliament or the speech, rather than trying actually have a physical camera operator taking the to get a more natural shot somewhere else, is that shots, or a remotely controlled lower camera but, if something that you would actually seriously want to you then decided that you were happy or everything do? Do you think it would be better viewing to have worked, you may look at using an automatic camera, this announcement in Parliament than made outside in because then that could be controlled from the control an interview format? room in number 7. Simon Mares: The example I gave was where what was conveyed in the interview was, almost word for Q19 Thomas Docherty: I think that is a different word, what was in the House. When you looked at the thing being said to me now but, if we are talking about shot in the House it was from the top of the head, a cameraman, then it becomes, particularly behind the whereas when you saw the interview—I think it was Speaker’s Chair, a very difficult environment, in that probably done in the Central Lobby or on the green— there is contraflow going on and lots of people it was looking the camera or the reporter in the eye standing around. It is also one of the places where, and doing it. I am not saying I can guarantee that we genuinely, it is an opportunity to catch Ministers on would use it every time, but there would be a greater both sides of the House. Would you accept that it may use of those kinds of announcements, I would have be prohibitive in terms of then allowing that free flow thought, from the House, seeing it being given to the of discussions between Members of Parliament and Ev 6 Administration Committee: Evidence

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren

Ministers if you either have a physical camera Simon Mares: No, I am not saying that. What I am operator or the sense of having a camera hanging in saying is that it would be nice to be able to actually the vicinity? Does that make sense? see the MPs voting to be able to picture what we are Simon Mares: I understand your question and entirely talking about. I do not know whether you take where you are coming from. There are two points, one constituents around but, when you see people taking of which is that people have to know the camera is groups round, they laboriously explain to them how there, so there is no walking out, having a chat or the Divisions take place, because they do not see or whatever and not knowing the camera is there. It has understand it. I am postulating this as another way of to be very clearly signposted that there is a camera explaining further how this place works. It would there—this is being filmed. Secondly, you could look mean that you would not have so many pundits telling at the angles or at some way where you could work it you what was going on; you would actually see it out so that you could give an impression of the for yourself. Division, and an idea of the excitement and the Esme Wren: If you don’t mind, may I just add to that atmosphere, without necessarily zeroing right in. that it is very hard to sex up a camera that is potentially locked off. There is no movement in it; it Q20 Thomas Docherty: Forgive me, Mr Mares, and is just going to give you the shot that it is delivering. I ask this genuinely: if it is about excitement and In that sense, it is just reporting the procedure so that glamour—I wouldn’t be sure that many Divisions of the correspondent can tell you what is happening the House of Commons are about excitement and according to the shot that that locked-off camera is glamour—surely you have that already. I think back providing. There is nothing more you can do with it. to my youthful days when you had the last John Major There is no move; there is no panning round; there is Government. There were some pretty tight votes no particular recording of a conversation. It is a going on and Newsnight would tend to cover some of locked-off shot that just enables us to tell the story in them. Surely, if it is a genuinely tight vote, what you better detail. tend to get are lots of MPs in the Chamber itself, either sitting on the Benches waiting for the results or Q23 Mr Watts: Isn’t the most likely way of getting standing. Do you not get that already genuinely? more people interested to do a more interactive Simon Mares: You do, but you do not see what they service, so there is someone explaining what is going are doing. You do not see the Division. It is a bit like on during that debate, rather than looking to the a Shakespearean play; it is all taking place off stage. camera shots to do that? It seems to me that is exactly We are all talking about something but we cannot see what TV does on a regular basis. If it wants to get it. That is the first point. Secondly, to go back to the interest, it will have someone commentating John Major Government, if you remember watching expressing what is going on and what it is likely to those broadcasts, there was a lot of commentary over happen. If it is a tight vote, it would be speculating them because there was no sound from the Chamber. on what that vote is likely to be. Is that not the only Pictures without sound, with the exception possibly of way you are actually going to do it? I honestly do not think that changing shot is going to make this a more The Artist recently, are a no-no on television. attractive product than it would be without that level of investment. Q21 Thomas Docherty: Just clarify then. Are you Esme Wren: It is quite hard to tell a story about what suggesting that we would broadcast sound? is happening with a very limited number of shots, Simon Mares: It is a wider shot. At the moment, you especially if they are wide. I do not know if you know have no sound at all, so you have this long shot going but, every week for PMQs, Sky News does a preview on for a long time, without any sound. piece with our deputy political editor Joey Jones. It is a forensic look at PMQs, what we had last week and Q22 Thomas Docherty: It strikes me that this is what we can expect from this week. He picks out very salami-slicing. What we end up doing, Mr Chairman, interesting points about people’s reactions or how is it sounds like—and correct me if I am wrong—that various speakers responded. I think that really draws we are now saying, “We will let you film the vote.” in an audience. As you say, it kind of takes a sports The next thing will be the sound of the tellers counting model but fits it to Parliament. That is a really people through, which has implications for interesting way of reporting the proceedings. To really parliamentary reporting in itself, and then it will be top that would just be to get a couple of extra shots, that you want the sound of the bustle of the Chamber. so we can give even greater detail and explanation of I genuinely do not see where this ends. It sounds like, what has happened. from what you are saying, you will come back and Simon Mares: I do not think it is either/or; it is both, come back, and ask for a bit more each time to try to I would suggest. Yes, you need a bit of punditry, but sex it up. I would have thought going to war does not better shots would make a better package all ways require any sexing-up. I would have thought the round. Health Bill and the Welfare Reform Bill do not need sexing-up. Are you saying that you do not think that Q24 Simon Kirby: I am not sure if it is a matter of your pundits and news editors are able to adequately sexing it up or making it more transparent. I am a cover, at the moment, the decision that we have in great fan of letting my constituents know what we all theory tonight about Iran, the decision that we took get up to, whether we are value for money and on Libya or, back before my time, that decision whether the process is all it should be. I do have a about Iraq? worry about who pays for it. At the end of the day, Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 7

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren the three of you sit there; you charge subscriptions to year? What were the reasons you agreed to pay, if it viewers, you sell adverts and you receive many is so unusual throughout the world? millions of pounds from the taxpayer already, Peter Knowles: It is before my time, but my respectively. My issue is not about whether it is right understanding is that Lady Thatcher, or Mrs Thatcher or appropriate. It is who pays for it. Have you any as Prime Minister, was most reluctant for Parliament comment on that at all? to be filmed. She was completely against the idea, and Peter Knowles: I am happy to have a go at that. The gave her agreement on the basis that “They can pay situation that pertained under PARBUL was not quite for it.” That is the story that is passed on. unique but very close to being unique in the world, in that, in almost every other Parliament, the Parliament Q26 Rosie Cooper: What changed last year? takes on the cost of broadcasting its proceedings. That Peter Knowles: What happened was that one of the is absolutely the norm. It is possible to find exceptions smaller commercial broadcasters indicated that it did if you go through the Gazetteer; I think there are only not want to carry on paying. two. It has been the case for a very long time—I could not give you the exact year—that the Parliament here Q27 Rosie Cooper: Which broadcaster would that has paid for the cameras and the infrastructure. The be? only change was last year in terms of running costs. Peter Knowles: That was Channel 5. That was what was exceptional. It was not that this Parliament has moved to an unusual position. In Q28 Rosie Cooper: Channel 5 was the lever for taking on the running costs, it is in line with just about which you got the taxpayers of this country to cough every other Parliament in the world. up over £1 million for you to broadcast. One of the problems with the previous arrangement Peter Knowles: It was first, though already another was the one that Sarah Newton was asking about broadcaster had dropped out by way of ceasing indirectly concerning online distribution. It was trading, so we had a shrinking number of proving increasingly difficult for Parliament to make broadcasters. In terms of the conversations that were its material available internationally, and to a whole had, it was very clear that Parliament was uneasy range of new broadcasters and new outlets, under the about the BBC having a dominant, majority role, as it old PARBUL arrangements. It was a model that was would have done in PARBUL. It was no longer an devised for a time of two or three broadcasters, even balance. Our shareholdings were becoming the pre-online. One of the big advantages that you now majority shareholdings. Equally, it was evident that have, which your Director of Broadcasting can this was an anomalous position. It did not fit with how exploit, is that you can actually make the material Parliaments elsewhere did business, and it was getting available freely to whoever is a responsible adult, in the way of making the pictures available anywhere in the world. That was one of the main internationally. PARBUL, instead of being an enabling reasons why Parliament decided to bring it in-house. outfit, was actually becoming an obstacle. So there So the costs just about everywhere in the world do were a great many factors at play there. belong to Parliament. Rosie Cooper: Can I just go on to state my own There are very great costs to us broadcasting position? While we are dealing with the austerity Parliament. BBC Parliament, the TV channel, in terms measures that are currently being handed out, if you of its distribution costs on Freeview alone, is going to like, in the name of the House authorities, in which I cost at least £5 million. I cannot give you an exact have stated previously I have little confidence; and figure—it is in the £5 million to £8 million range— while front-line public services are being cut; while because it is part of a bundle of frequencies that are people who desperately need services, be it the Health bought and paid for together by BBC, but producing Service and/or legal aid or whatever, are having the and distributing a channel like BBC Parliament is not amount available to those groups of people cut, there cost-free. It is a very major investment. I have a team is absolutely no way—I agree. In essence, I think if of 30 people between BBC Parliament, Today in you went to any of the taxpayers and said to them, Parliament, Yesterday in Parliament and the big “Here is a shot from here, a shot from there. Is the website that we run, Democracy Live, and we difference worth £50,000?” they are going to say continue to fund all of the running costs to do with “no”. If you are not paying for it, and until you are Select Committees. At the time of the changes to the paying for it, if I take an opposite view—Mrs arrangements around PARBUL, there was not a clear Thatcher’s view—then I do not believe that, at this mechanism that anybody could see as to what the new time, the taxpayer ought to be asked for a penny more mechanism would be for selecting which Committees just to change a shot. They are not getting anything are filmed. A great number of Committees meet—30 different. They can still hear the message; they can or so in a week—but which ones get the full broadcast hear the speech. The picture may be different. It may treatment and which do not? There are web cameras be easier for your good selves, or whatever. I do here but no broadcast cameras. Actually, we came up genuinely think it is disingenuous to say that you want with the very pragmatic view that the price to do it to help the hard of hearing or disabled, of mechanism was relevant and useful in this. We choose which I am one. I come from a family where both my which Committees to opt into and pay for them. It is parents were born deaf—one born deaf, one deafer still a mixed economy, to a degree. than before. Therefore, if you came into my house, you would find the TV has subtitles on permanently. Q25 Rosie Cooper: Could I ask why broadcast To use that as the excuse for this, when you can media agreed to contribute to the costs before this actually see it, is a bit— Ev 8 Administration Committee: Evidence

20 February 2012 Peter Knowles, Simon Mares and Esme Wren

Q29 Chair: That was a statement rather than a say that is what you need, and then cut away the very question, Rosie. Can I just come back to the specifics? I prescriptive, very detailed rules about exactly what think you will have understood that there is some kinds of shots you can and cannot use. They are your reluctance for extra money to be spent on this. For employees; they will know what you want and deliver Parliament to want to be persuaded to do that, they what you want. On occasions, at the moment, you would need to be convinced that there is some real cannot have a close-up shot of someone speaking. I am advantage. The Director of Broadcasting has conducted not certain why that rule was put in there in the first certain experiments with placing additional cameras, place but, it strikes me, if you have a medium close-up, which would help with the specific point that is being a wider shot and a close-up, then you have a wider made that there is a disadvantage, which I think we variety of shots. Hopefully, with that slight bit of extra recognise, that when you are filming the Ministers and freedom, it is going to be a better representation of the Shadow Ministers at Despatch Box their heads are House, more interesting to viewers and hopefully will down. Would you not accept that, inevitably, the heads keep them more engaged if you get rid of those very are going to be down from almost whichever angle you prescriptive rules of what you can and cannot do. take them, because Ministers in particular, and also in some several cases Shadow Ministers, are going to be Q32 Chair: Forgive me, but I am not very technical. adhering to their script, for very understandable Digitalisation: if we became fully digital, would that reasons? Therefore they might look up, smile and beam not help you overcome some of the limitations that you one minute, but they have to go back to their text the feel are presently there, by being able to show on screen next. I do not know what the gain is, therefore, from more information that would help to guide the viewer? trying to station additional cameras in the only places Simon Mares: I am old-fashioned in television; I they could be, at ground level. always think the picture is the most important thing. Simon Mares: If a Front Bencher is looking across at the other Front Bencher, if the shot is from above, you Q33 Chair: What I was thinking of was, if you wish to would still not see the eyes, because they would be refer to a retiring Clerk or somebody like that who may looking across and the camera would be much higher. It be sitting there, there are dangers, apparent to some of is bringing the camera angle down so that the camera is us, to giving you carte blanche to film the Gallery in looking at the person. I agree with you: if they are there certain circumstances. We think it would build up from reading a script all the way through, you will not see the there, but you could show a still picture of the Clerk in eyes. But if they are doing what most Front Benchers question while someone was speaking about that Clerk. seem to do, which is to look at their notes and then look You could, in fact, have a narrative going down the side up and make the points then, or they are responding to as well. I am borrowing from Sky News HD in this but, a point and looking at the person on the other side of if you had those facilities, would that not overcome at the House, you would see the eyes. The problem at the least some of the problems you have been talking moment is, even if you are looking straight ahead, you about? will still get a top-of-head shot, because of the angle of Simon Mares: I take your point. That is obviously very the camera on the far side of the Chamber. specifically when you are referring specifically to our request to be able to film in the public galleries. The Q30 Chair: Does it not strike you that it is a very point I was making before was more particularly about marginal improvement for an expenditure of £50,000? filming the activities within the Chamber. At the Simon Mares: I would have thought it would moment, there is a whole series of very detailed rules, significantly improve matters. That is my opinion; which I would say you do not need. You need the obviously the Committee would have their opinion. I common sense of the people involved. Youhave had the would have thought it would make a significant sense to publish the rules, and you have the statement difference. of objectives in terms of covering the Chamber. I would argue that that should be enough to enable your Q31 Chair: Are there no improvements from purposes and what we would like to be covered in the presenting the activities in the Chamber—I will qualify same way. it in that way—that would come from granting you wider flexibility with the already-installed cameras? Q34 Chair: And cheap. Simon Mares: Absolutely. That was the meat of the Simon Mares: I cannot see any extra cost, no. In fact, case that I made in the paper that I put to the Committee. we would probably not have to print as many When I read through the guidelines again, I thought the guidelines, so it might even actually be cheaper. mission statement you gave the Director of Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We have to hear Broadcasting and the director who is directing the from our Director of Broadcasting, who has been coverage was very good, strong guidance in terms of listening to you, if I am allowed to refer to the gallery presenting Parliament as it works, with respect and on this occasion. We appreciate your coming in. You whatever. Then you go into a whole series of very will see that you have a bit of a mountain to climb in prescriptive rules about not being able to use certain persuading us on at least some of the aspects of this, but kinds of shots and things like that. My argument would we will give serious consideration to the points you be that you have a very strong set of guidelines; I would have been good enough to advance, both in writing and orally today. Thank you very much indeed. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 9

Examination of Witness

Witness: John Angeli, Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting, gave evidence.

Q35 Chair: May we now welcome you back, John, Q39 Chair: Is it not the case you were trying to be officially while we are still in public session? I think helpful by giving the Committee a chance to consider that you would accept, would you not, that the idea of these matters before you started entering into our expending more money on Parliament without negotiations with the broadcasters? there being a palpable gain in terms of transmitting John Angeli: That is exactly so. The request was from the pictures is not something that readily commends the broadcasters to ask whether or not it is possible. itself? My belief is that it is possible to have an eye-level John Angeli: Yes, I would agree with that. I think that view of the Front Bench. I am not sure that, with the what Peter Knowles was referring to was that, in the current camera technology, it is currently appropriate, overall budget that we have, there may be ways of but at least we have looked at the first part. It is for re-utilising aspects of the existing budget. That might members to decide whether or not it is desirable. be something worth looking into. I have not yet looked into it. It might be possible to look at the way Q40 Sarah Newton: I think like a lot of other that we currently organise ourselves and spend our Members, and perhaps particularly the new Members, money and see whether or not there is a way of doing we have sat through, listened to and joined in debates. it outside of that. If it was additional cost, I am not On those occasions I thought, “This is Parliament at sure that it would be a priority. its best, and why don’t the public get to see us at our best?” My question really goes back to the other Q36 Chair: Do you, looking at this relatively afresh, questions I was asking before about access, see scope for revisiting the restrictions that we broadening access and providing more opportunities presently have in place on the use of existing cameras, to broadcast what happens in Select Committees, so far as actual proceedings in the Chamber are Westminster Hall or Adjournment debates when it is concerned? not the main news time, peak viewing, in the day or John Angeli: I think there is more that can be done the afternoon. What thoughts could you share with us with the existing set-up. Looking at it coming in, about how you feel access can be widened to enable under the Rules of Coverage, we are allowed to show more of that type of work of Parliament to be a head-and-shoulders shot, but actually what we show broadcast so that the media has access to it? much of the time is a hips-waist-chest-shoulders-and-head shot. It is quite John Angeli: Previous Committees that have looked wide. I think that may partly be a throwback to when at Rules of Coverage have all touched on this. There television was in 4:3. When we moved to widescreen, is a bigger audience out there that does not currently we kept the shot quite loose. Sometimes it is difficult find it easy to access the sorts of things that touch for directors to stay tight on a shot when a Member is on their lives. I am thinking particularly about online moving and, actually by being slightly looser, it helps audiences. I guess a good example coming up is that them to keep the Member in line, but I think there is the Hillsborough disaster will again be debated some scope for offering a slightly tighter shot without shortly. It was only the changes in the rules crossing the line at all. surrounding PARBUL that allowed us to offer a shot of the coverage of the recent debate on Hillsborough Q37 Thomas Docherty: A very wise observer said in the Commons. Liverpool Football Club, which has that if Sky Sports went to the Premier League and a TV channel, took that coverage and has asked for said, “We want to sex up our coverage and we want the upcoming debate also to be made available to you to pay for it,” they would be booted out of the them, which we will do. My concern is that other stadium concerned. Why have you not adopted the media organisations and members of the public in the same strategy with the broadcasters? area may not have access to that. I think it is great John Angeli: The request for an eye-level shot of the that LFC TV has it—hats off to them—but I would Front Bench is, I think, a reasonable request, putting like to think that the local newspapers in the patch to one side the cost. could also access it. To date, the way that we have provisioned our video Q38 Thomas Docherty: That is my question; it is coverage of procedure has been based on a broadcast about the cost, not the issue of the merits of the model with a television signal to BT Tower, and we broadcast. Why have you even entertained the idea of have not taken it much further. It is very difficult for spending up to another £50,000 to do this, rather than particularly local newspapers to access parliamentary saying to the broadcasters, “If you want to do this, content and put those live streams on to their website where is the money”? or put them up on demand, given the current John Angeli: I was taking it in stages, and the first infrastructure. When we think about what our step was if there is an eye-level shot to be had in the priorities are, my priority would be to ensure that Chamber that is appropriate, and then to move on to more coverage of all Select Committees is made all of the surrounding issues that ensue after that. If available and that local media in particular have the there is a reason not to do it on cost grounds, then that opportunity to access that content at a rate that is more is a reason not to do it, but I think it is reasonable to commensurate with what they do in the online sphere. see whether or not there is a shot that Members and If I were punching the air in a couple of years’ time, others can take a view on, as to whether or not it is it would be over the fact that local audiences have a help. access to local debates. Ev 10 Administration Committee: Evidence

20 February 2012 John Angeli

Q41 Sarah Newton: I think we would all say Q44 Mr Watts: Finally, cameras do not last forever. “hooray” to that. Just a quick supplementary: we When do you anticipate that the present system would talked a lot about austerity and the House budgets become defunct and need replacing anyway? being reduced. With the budget that you have at the John Angeli: We go through cycles of refurbishment moment and how you are being managed, do you have for control rooms and cameras. We have a major the flexibility to be able to deliver on that very refurbishment requirement for 7 Millbank, which was admirable vision? due for renewal one or two years ago. Probably by John Angeli: It starts on a wider issue actually and it about 2013–14, it will become a real issue for us. I is not really Rules of Coverage, but I think Parliament think we can keep it going until then, but that is the has to work out an audio/video strategy. How are opportunity to look at how we go about video audio and video provisioned? I am including quite a coverage of Parliament. few things in that, including how audio and video are accessed in the House, how Members get hold of Q45 Graham Evans: Have you seen the website coverage of their own contributions, as well as how it figures for online access to the Parliamentary archive? is made available more generally. I suspect that, if we Coverage on the Commons Chamber, for example, looked at the entirety of the budget spent on audio and despite using the current footage and camera angles, video services within Parliament, we might be able to has gone from 287,000 in 2010 and has risen, within do more for the same. That is really how I would 12 months, to 659,000—a huge change. Even the approach it. Committees have gone from 195,000 to 604,000. That Simon Kirby: Can I put it to you that making excuses is phenomenal growth using the current technology about technology, even discussing Rules of Coverage and current camera angles—good, bad or indifferent. or AV strategies, is a total red herring, in my opinion? With that sort of growth, where do you see it in What people out there who pay their taxes after 12 months’ time or two years’ time, without any working hard want to hear is how we can take this investment? How would you see it growing for the great product that is Parliament—if I may liken it to likes of the good people of Merseyside who do not a soap opera, it has a great script, great actors and is have access to LFC TV, without actually having to set in a fantastic location—and sell it for millions of spend a huge amount of money in the process? pounds, and see it as a fantastic product, rather than John Angeli: The figures will, I hope, continue to something that costs us huge sums that we give away rise. I should say that last year’s figures, the figures for nothing. Surely that is far more important than that I have quoted to you, the earlier figures, were in worrying about where the cameras go. a general election year, so they are slightly Chair: But it is outside the scope of this inquiry. suppressed, but I think there is still significant growth Simon Kirby: It is, and you will forgive me, Chair, in the number of people coming to the Parliament site as a new member of this Committee, for asking that for coverage. I do not think there is any major new question. additional spend required to provision local media Chair: It is history now, to a large extent. It can be with online feeds. The more difficult question is gone into on another occasion. whether they have the technology and the budgets themselves to provide that streaming capability on Q42 Mr Watts: John, how much do you have in your their websites. My guess is that, while we do see a budget to actually go ahead with this? That is the first fair bit of traffic come to the parliamentary website, it question. Is this something that you have a budget for? would be better if people were coming across a Secondly, was it the media that came to you or did parliamentary debate through their local media you go to the media about it? Who suggested this? channels, because that is probably going to see a Was it your suggestion or was it theirs? dramatic rise in the numbers of views that we would John Angeli: Is this for the camera in the Chamber? get. Mr Watts: Yes. John Angeli: This was a request at the last Q46 Rosie Cooper: Could I just ask: the Administration Committee meeting by the refurbishment of 2013–14, roughly how much will broadcasters. that cost? Mr Watts: So the broadcasters asked for that. John Angeli: We are looking at a refurbishment in the John Angeli: They asked for it, yes. region of £3 million to £4 million.

Q43 Mr Watts: The second issue was about, if you Q47 Rosie Cooper: When TV cameras were were required to do this, whether there is a budget and originally put in, who paid for the cameras at that how much is in that budget. time? If Mrs Thatcher thought they ought to be paying John Angeli: No, there isn’t a budget. If I am honest for it, she would not have put money in the budget to about it, with what I have said to Sarah about where do it, would she? the priorities would be, my priorities would be to John Angeli: No. I do not know whether it was split. ensure that there is wider access to a broader audience I would have to check for you. than is currently the case. Within that, I would say that the BBC, Sky and ITV can all help, and I am sure Q48 Rosie Cooper: Before this gets very much would be open to the idea that, if we were able to further, rather than being treated like a rubber stamp make more coverage available to them at a high on a load of idiots, somebody ought to arrive here enough quality, they would also help to ensure that with some of the real facts as to why we are being that could happen. asked this. My view, categorically, is if I took what Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 11

20 February 2012 John Angeli you are asking for out there, to an ordinary member John Angeli: Yes, it probably is doable for the of the public, and said, “Do you think this is value for visitors’ galleries. It is, I suspect, not doable for the money, this shot, this shot and all the rest of it?” after Public Gallery, given the current set-up. they had stopped laughing—and I understand it is important to broadcasters and, actually, if you are Q51 Nigel Mills: The second question: the images paying for it, you can have— you have shown us of, what was it, Q-Ball camera— Chair: Rosie, this witness is not paying for anything. it sounds like a snooker development—how much would it cost to get these on trial and trial this for a Q49 Rosie Cooper: Okay, my apologies. If you were day, or is that just not feasible? to get the money in, then I am sure a lot of other John Angeli: It would be feasible to do an things could be considered. Really, I would put it to experiment, but it would probably cost £2,000 or you, if you could find £50,000 in your budget that you £3,000. There are obviously some other concerns that can use for other things, my question to you would would need to be addressed before a trial took place. be: why have you been wasting that money every year until we got to this point? Q52 Rosie Cooper: Could I just ask one final John Angeli: There are a couple of things really. I question? I am really trying to get an understanding have not said that it would be a priority for my office and it is just a question. Can any of these thoughts or to provision an additional camera in the Chamber. decisions actually be implemented without this What I have said is that I have gone as far as to Committee and/or Parliament or whoever? Could establish that there is a shot, but whether or not we these be implemented without our having a say? So would want to make that a priority at this stage or many of these decisions just happen and, by the time whether it is desirable is really a matter for we get them back again, they will have happened. consideration. I have also not said that I could find Could any of this just happen? £50,000 in my budget but, if I did, I would either have John Angeli: Sorry, in what sense? it nabbed away from me or I would go down the road Rosie Cooper: Could a camera appear here or there that we have been discussing previously of broadening on an experimental basis? Could we have decision access to other audiences, which perhaps are not creep? wedded so much to Prime Minister’s Question Time, John Angeli: No, I do not think so. but would like to know a little bit more about what is Chair: A resolution of the House is required, Rosie. being said in Westminster Hall. Rosie Cooper: I would be very grateful if, at some Q53 Graham Evans: A technical question: as point, maybe not today, we could have a real overview regards having a camera for the Gallery to see of the history of it, how we got here and where we individuals or groups of people there, on many are in financial terms. I don’t know whether it was occasions it is really either quite controversial or Thomas or Dave who was talking about creep. We maybe quite upsetting for individuals in the Gallery. have gone from Mrs Thatcher, if that is the correct Although they have come to see the debate in the assessment of what happened at that time, saying we House, if they say, “We do not want to be filmed,” will pay for nothing to now, when not only are we what would be the situation then? paying for everything, but it is like jam tomorrow— John Angeli: As the broadcasters have made clear, what more can we have? I really think we have gone Parliament owns the camera crews and the Gallery, on a journey. and everything that gets filmed or shot is a Chair: Rosie, we have gone on a journey way outside parliamentary decision and they take the feed. I would of the scope of this particular review. You have made imagine that, even if we were to go down this road, it these remarks on at least three previous occasions. It would need to be cleared with anyone who was to be is not within the scope of this inquiry. You may wish filmed that they were to be filmed, and they would to pursue it in other way, but not within the scope of have to agree. I cannot imagine a situation where it this inquiry. would be done otherwise. Chair: John, thank you very much indeed. We Q50 Nigel Mills: Two questions. First one: they are appreciate it. That is the end of the public session. asking about having pictures of the Gallery. Is that something that you can deliver with the existing camera mountings or not? Ev 12 Administration Committee: Evidence

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by ITV News

ITV welcomes the committee’s decision to conduct a light-touch review of the rules to “consider the current rules of coverage for the Chamber, Westminster Hall and Committees, and whether any change is required.”

First we would like to put on the record our appreciation of how the coverage of the Chamber has evolved under the present rules to provide a more imaginative and attractive range of shots for broadcasters to use. It is in that spirit of evolutionary change that we make this submission.

We suggest the committee considers possible changes under two headings: 1). Positioning of cameras in the Chamber and 2). A less prescriptive approach in the Specific Guidelines for Picture Direction in section 2 of the Rules of Coverage. 1. Positioning of Cameras in the Chamber: The existing cameras in the Commons Chamber provide a shot looking down on to the Chamber from above. This mitigates against being able to convey the intimacy of the Chamber, and in particular disadvantages those speaking from the front bench. Far too much of the coverage of front bench speakers is of the tops of their heads as they look down at their notes or straight across the Chamber at the benches opposite. The viewer is unable to look the member speaking in the eye which could lead to material from the Chamber not being used. For instance when Health Secretary Andrew Lansley made a statement to the Commons about breast implants this year both ITV and BBC national news programmes used an interview clip with him recorded outside the Chamber. Viewers watching the interview clip were able to see the minister’s eyes and face whereas the shot from the proceedings in the Chamber was not as clear, although similar points were being made. The “top of the head problem” gets worse the nearer to the front bench you get because of the V- shaped floor of the Chamber. Cameras positioned lower down and able to look across rather than down on to the floor of the Chamber would help to resolve this issue. They would also help to portray more faithfully the intimacy of the Chamber so more accurately meeting the Statement of Objectives set out in point 1 of the Statement of Objectives—“to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House.” 2. A less prescriptive approach in the specific guidelines: The Statement of Objectives (quoted above) provides the director and the Director of Broadcasting with straightforward, commonsense guidance on televising the House. We consider that wherever possible they should be left to work within the parameters of those guidelines without detailed instructions about what kind of shot they can, or cannot, use. For instance in Section 2 (b) we would suggest that sub-sections (i), (iii), (v), (vi) and (vii) should be scrapped and (ii) shortened to “The camera should normally remain on the Member speaking.” This would provide the director with the opportunity to vary the shots of the Member speaking, to use close-up or head and shoulders shots as appropriate and to allow more general reaction shots. As broadcasters we want the camera focussed on the Member speaking as much as possible so that when we want to use a clip in our news bulletins we can be confident we will see the Member speaking, but more imaginative reaction shots would be very welcome. Similarly, given that the Statement of Objectives sets the tone of the coverage, we feel that the whole of 2(c) Special Camera Techniques, that is (i), (ii) and (iii), could be scrapped as well. We also ask the committee to consider two further changes. Point 2 (a) (iii) of the guidelines lays down very strict rules for televising divisions, which seriously limit our ability to convey, using pictures rather than a commentary, the drama and tension surrounding big votes. First we would like to have sound during divisions, second to allow the director to use a variety of shots rather than being limited to a wide shot and third to investigate the possibility of using cameras outside either end of the Chamber to show Members entering and leaving the Division Lobbies. Perhaps this last proposal could be done as a trial with the committee viewing footage before deciding whether or not to proceed either for all Divisions or for occasional ones on crucial knife-edge or especially significant, votes. The second change we would ask the committee to consider is whether the restrictions on filming the public galleries in 2(a)(i) could be relaxed when people are mentioned on the Floor of the House—for instance the retirement of Drill Sergeant Eddie Mackay in December last year or Mr and Mrs Clough when their campaign was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions in January.

Thank you for the opportunity to make our case to the committee for what we feel are measured and appropriate changes which will allow televising of the proceedings of the House to meet the Statement of Objectives in the existing rules of coverage more fully than they do at present. February 2012 Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 13

Written evidence submitted by ITN ITN fully supports this review and the detailed consideration that your committee will be undertaking of this important issue. It is now 23 years since TV cameras were first introduced into Parliament. We believe that those reforms—and the subsequent changes to them—have made Parliament more transparent and have improved the democratic process immeasurably. It is worth noting in this context that the most recent survey on this subject found that two thirds of MPs believe that televising Parliament has made it more transparent. Furthermore, 93% thought that a Parliament closed off to television would now be unthinkable (BBC Parliament, Com Res Survey in 2009). Fears that were expressed over two decades ago have clearly not materialised, and this progress provides a good foundation for the rules to be developed further with the goal of opening up parliamentary democracy on television even more. It is our firm belief that the more open Parliament is, the more we will be able to encourage public engagement, widen understanding of parliamentary processes and improve transparency.

1. Background ITN is the UK’s biggest independent producer of public service broadcast news. The news services we produce for our main customers—ITV and Channel 4—reach nearly 10 million people every day. ITN will also resume news provision for Channel 5 later this month, meaning we will again supply all three main commercial PSB broadcasters in the UK. We therefore play a crucial role as the BBC’s main competitor in the provision of high quality, impartial news, reaching a diverse cross-section of the British population. ITN’s award-winning journalism is also watched by millions more viewers worldwide, through global partnerships with outlets such as Reuters, CNN and NBC, and platforms including Livestation, YouTube and MSN. As well as providing high-quality, trusted broadcast news output, ITN operates three other divisions: footage sales arm ITN Source; video creation business ITN Productions; and advisory services from ITN Consulting. ITN has four shareholders: ITV plc (40%), Daily Mail and General Trust (20%), Reuters (20%) and United Business Media (20%). All of our news services use—to differing degrees—footage from Parliament. Use of Parliamentary footage is at the editorial discretion of each news service, and current rules mean that the material we use most often in our reports comes from the main Chamber. We frequently use sound bites from exchanges at PMQs and high profile Commons statements and debates of national interest. We use the footage as pictures to illustrate major Commons events such as Budget Day, or particularly dramatic debates where the story is very much about what occurred in the Chamber. We try to avoid using shots of “green benches” as “wallpaper” to illustrate our news reports, as that can be off-putting for viewers and often does not help illustrate or explain the issue being debated. We do however use a considerable amount of Committee material on Channel 4 News, but it is very rare for any of our news services to use footage from Westminster Hall.

2. Issues with the Current Rules Significant progress has been made since the first television cameras entered the House of Commons in 1989, and we welcome the fact that we are now able to use a greater variety of shots than in the past. However we believe there are several issues with the present rules which hamper our ability to reflect the widest possible activity in The Chamber, Westminster Hall and Committees. Our viewers are hungry for variety and insight, and we believe that the current rules prevent us from reflecting the full range of work that elected representatives are conducting on our behalf.

2.1 Style and presentation and special camera techniques The current rules set out quite a prescriptive list of rules for the director (at 2(b) and 2(c)) concerning style and presentation and special camera techniques. These rules restrict our ability to capture the atmosphere of the Chamber and restrict us in the filming of reaction shots, thus curtailing our ability to provide an interesting view of proceedings that our viewers are more likely to engage with. We would suggest that it is possible to keep the general principles of providing a “full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings” without having such strict rules. Indeed, the conventional “grammar” of television news would mean that MPs would still normally be filmed in mid-shot, and would be in vision for most of the time when they are speaking. The overarching result of relaxing these rules would be to give the director more flexibility to provide a more natural view of the proceedings.

2.2 Camera positions At present our camera positions in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and the Committees are limited to high angle shots, looking down on MPs’ heads. This creates a distance between the viewer and what is happening in real time and mitigates against capturing the intimacy of the chamber, which is particularly important when filming the front bench. The current shots match badly and do not run smoothly with the TV news footage that Ev 14 Administration Committee: Evidence

appears in the rest of our broadcasts. This means we are much less likely to use sound bites from speeches in the Chamber. We therefore recommend that the Committee consider having cameras at a lower level in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and the Committees. Eye level shots would make the resultant coverage less remote and more engaging for viewers and provide a better indication of the atmosphere in Parliament. Essentially it would mean we would be more likely to use the footage in our broadcasts.

2.3 Restriction on filming galleries The Specific Guideline for Picture Direction 2(a)(i) prohibits us from filming shots of particular visitors in the Galleries. This impacts on our coverage of Parliament, as occasionally a notable guest to the Chamber is referred to, or even welcomed to the Chamber at PMQs or during a significant debate. Without a cutaway shot of that person, it is much less likely that the remark will be used in news bulletins. Our recommendation would thus be for the Committee to consider changing rule 2(a)(i), to allow shots of particular visitors in the Galleries, perhaps with a specified time limit on how long the shot can last or and how many times the shot can be shown.

2.4 Divisions The Specific Guideline for Picture Direction 2(a)(iii) says that during divisions a wide angle shot of the chamber may be used. Divisions are sometimes exceptionally newsworthy and it would significantly improve the news coverage if the director was allowed to use a variety of shots from the Chamber during divisions, showing MPs going into the Lobbies to vote and to broadcast sound from the Chamber. We would therefore suggest that the Committee consider relaxing the rule 2(a)(iii) to allow for a much more interesting and engaging broadcast for viewing audiences.

2.5 Westminster Hall and interviewing MPs Our ability to conduct interviews with MPs on the Westminster estate has traditionally been limited, hampering our ability to capture the views of parliamentarians as news is breaking. Exacerbating this—as the tuition fees riots showed—there are occasions when access to MPs has been severely restricted for security reasons. Furthermore, even when no security risks stand, MPs are often reluctant to head to Palace Green or Millbank. This has significantly hindered our ability to gather breaking news stories and engage with a wider variety of politicians who are keen to comment but unable to commit the time (or indeed simply want to avoid adverse weather conditions). Accordingly, we welcome the Committee’s recent decision to allow extra interview points in Westminster Hall and the Lower Waiting Hall. Going forward, we would also propose a reserved position for accredited broadcasters in Westminster Hall where broadcasters can turn up and interview MPs without the need to obtain permission in advance.

2.6 Committees Since Bowtie is limited in the number of committees it can film and sometimes a committee which is not being covered live becomes newsworthy, we would ask for the ability to film and broadcast those events held in House of Commons committee rooms which are not already being covered by Bowtie. We would also recommend the flexibility for broadcasters to be able to film such committees at relatively short notice in order to give us more opportunity to cover MPs in their own environment.

3. Wider Concerns As the Committee may know, discussions took place between the Sergeant at Arms and broadcasters at the end of last year about broadcasting in the Commons in general. Without going into detail here—because strictly speaking this falls outside of the remits of this review—we arrived at a number of recommendations that we believe will contribute towards the goal of opening up access to Parliament. These recommendations include measures to show—and speak to—MPs in as wide a way as possible, suggesting more camera positions in the Palace where we can interview MPs and for instance on special parliamentary occasions or crucial votes, a pool camera to be able to capture the atmosphere in areas such as Portcullis House Atrium, Committee Corridor and the Colonnade. However, there is one important administrative issue that we believe does fall within the remit of this review: the process we have to go through to obtain permission to film. It is our strong recommendation that the Committee amends the rules to ensure there is only one point of contact that broadcasters can liaise with to obtain permissions to film. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 15

4. Summary of Recommendations In summary, there are several recommendations we would like the Committee to consider as part of its review: — Relax rules concerning picture direction for the director in the Chamber at 2(b) and 2(c) to be replaced by application of the general principle of providing a “full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings.” — Allow lower level camera angles in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and the Committees. — Change rule 2(a)(i) to permit shots of particular visitors in the Galleries of the Chamber. — Relax the rules restricting filming certain parts of the Chamber during divisions at 2(a)(iii) to allow for a variety of shots to be used. — Introduce a reserved position for accredited broadcasters in Westminster Hall to allow for interviews with MPs without the need to obtain permission in advance. — Introduce one point of contact for obtaining permissions to film. I hope this brief summary of our recommendations is helpful to the committee in the initial stages of its inquiry. February 2012

Written evidence submitted by Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting Introduction The Committee will be aware there has been a significant change in the televising arrangements over the past year with the ending of PARBUL agreement. It might be helpful therefore to reflect on these changes before moving on to other aspects of Parliamentary coverage. In August 2011 Parliament assumed the costs of the televising operation as well as maintaining its existing commitment to equipment costs. This was as a result of a decision by UK broadcasters to cease funding the service. Under the new arrangements media organisations in the UK and abroad are able to obtain a licence from the Parliament rather than PARBUL which grants them access to a televised feed from the Commons and Lords chambers as well as Westminster Hall. Over the past 6 months the number of licenses issued has risen from 25 to more than 100 and includes Al Jazeera, Agence France Presse, the Hansard Society, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Spectator, Independent, Times and Daily Mail. We continue to charge for televised committee coverage based on requests from media organisations. Since August the wider range of licence holders has seen requests for Chamber and Committee coverage from British Forces Broadcasting Service, Bloomberg TV and Liverpool FC Television (Hillsborough disaster debate October 2011).

Televising of the Commons The key requirement for the television director is to provide a full, balanced and accurate account of proceedings in the chamber with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House. The television director is guided by the rules of coverage. These rules have been updated in consultation with broadcasters over the past two decades. The most recent change to these rules came in December 2006 when the Speaker agreed to a recommendation from the Administration Committee: “...a greater variety of shots of proceedings in the Chamber will be allowed than is the case at present, including a greater use of reaction shots in order to illustrate the mood of the House, and the provision of a low-level atmospheric sound-feed during divisions rather than the current complete silence.” This change, welcomed by the broadcasters, has helped the TV directors in providing viewers with a visual narrative of Commons procedure as well as providing engaging, authoritative and appropriate coverage of proceedings for both continuous coverage and for the provision of sound bites for news coverage. Feedback to the Director of Broadcasting from the public and from broadcasters has confirmed that these developments have been widely appreciated and have helped to aid effective public understanding. The Committee will be aware of a more recent request from the broadcasters for an “eye-level” shot of speakers at the dispatch box which, it is argued, would provide a more natural angle for viewers. In order to establish if such a shot was achievable filming took place during the recent recess. Some illustrations of the types of shots which can be achieved have been recorded. Ev 16 Administration Committee: Evidence

A copy is available for committee members to review. There are a number of issues which the committee may wish to consider: (i) Is it practical or desirable for cameras to be positioned at floor level in the chamber for either members or staff working in the chamber? (ii) Would a new camera angle assist viewers in providing a “full, balanced and accurate” account of proceedings? And by making more of other Members being in the background would this have an unintended effect on Members behaviour in the Chamber (eg “doughnutting” behind Members speaking), and during debates with fewer Members being present would it make the Chamber appear even emptier? (iii) If there is interest in exploring this approach, further filming (not for broadcast) would be required during a number of sittings to fully understand what impact new cameras would have in a working environment and to more clearly assess the editorial proposition. (iv) How would such a change be funded?

The Rules of Coverage also provide instructions for what should happen in the event of disruption. It is worth noting that these rules were put to the test and adhered to by the television director in July 2011 when a member of the public disrupted proceedings during evidence to the Culture Media and Sport select committee in July 2011—coverage ended as soon as the Chairman adjourned the session.

Online

Viewing figures on the Parliamentary website have seen significant growth over the past year. Views of Commons Chamber coverage increased from 287,000 in 2010 to 659,000 in 2011. Committee views rose from 195,000 in 2010 to 604,000 last year.

The number of requests for archive footage from members and the public continues to rise, however requests from the education sector is disappointingly low. We recommend that this issue of access to Parliamentary video, including the 20 years of archive, is further explored by the Broadcast Unit in conjunction with other departments and that a strategy is developed which would facilitate greater access to the archive.

The potential for wider distribution of Parliamentary content via the internet has been commented on in previous reviews of the Rules of Coverage. A number of factors have mitigated against this development including the PARBUL licensing arrangements and associated fees as well as the absence of a digital solution for storage distribution and archive which would aid access for the public as well as MPs and Parliamentary staff. These are now areas of focus for the Broadcasting Unit.

At the end of 2011 the Broadcasting Unit was approached by a number of national newspapers, and separately by the Press Association and by Downing Street. All are keen to take advantage of the new licensing arrangements and provide greater coverage of Parliamentary proceedings. They have requested an encoded video feed at multiple bit rates for distribution across their digital properties. The national newspapers involved have indicated that they are willing, for their part, to bear the costs of the set-up.

The attraction of establishing a new approach to distribution for online outlets is that it holds out the possibility that all video coverage of procedural content, which is currently restricted to Parliament’s website, is made available to national and local media and other interested parties including Government departments. This method of delivery will be particularly critical to local news media across the UK.

Our recommendation to the committee is that a one year trial of this service is initiated. Over this period we would invite feedback from participants to establish take-up and future requirements.

Licensing

The current internet licence reflects many of the conditions attached to the broadcast licence, including the need for publishers to observe the Rules of Coverage and Usage. It also specifies a number of areas specific to online such as embedding of video material. A number of news organisations have indicated that the terminology of some of the terms and conditions, such as those relating to advertising and watermarking are ambiguous.

Our recommendation to the committee is that there is a review of the internet licensing arrangements to clarify any outstanding areas of concern.

The current licenses are silent on organisations taking stills from the footage. The Parliamentary Recording Unit treats stills as extracts from recordings and this works well. However it would be useful to make this explicit in the license arrangements and to make it clear that a license is required to take and use a still. January 2012 Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 17

Written evidence submitted by BBC The three main UK broadcasters welcome the Administration Committee’s inquiry into the broadcasting rules relating to the coverage of the Chamber, Westminster Hall and committees. We are keen to work with the Parliamentary authorities to better reflect the fact that audience interest in Parliament is at an all-time high. Parliament has changed the way it conducts business—through Urgent Questions and backbench committee petitions—Parliamentary actuality is more prominent in TV bulletins and we are confident that coverage can be further improved to bring it more into line with the quality that audiences now expect to see. Some suggested changes are set out below: — Increase the use of relevant listening shots in debate coverage. — Encourage director of broadcasting to explore improved camera angles to better show faces of frontbench and other Parliamentarians as they speak—current top-shots of speakers are unflattering and excluding. This makes it harder both for the audience to relate to the debate and for us to capture the intimacy of the Chamber. — Permit filming of visitors to galleries at the point when they’re specifically referred to on the floor of the House (on the occasion of the retirement of the doorman Drill Sergeant Eddie Mackay in December 2011 for instance). — Film the Division lobbies on a trial basis. February 2012

Written evidence submitted by William Turrell Introduction My name is William Turrell. I’m an individual with no past/present connection with any broadcaster, though I’ve always had a keen interest in technology, broadcasting and politics.

Executive Summary Having watched your oral evidence session today: — (paragraph 1) I’m in favour of showing selected individuals in the public gallery and relaxing restrictions on “listening” shots, at no extra cost. — (7) I think adjusting the camera angles to better show front bench speakers probably is value for money. — (9) I think divisions should be filmed in some way, even if only occasionally for educational purposes. — (10) I believe the allowable camera shots in the chamber during a division could be varied, at no extra cost. — (13) Taking the public tour gave me greater respect for the Commons voting procedure; I think more flexible TV coverage would do the same for others. — (17) I think technical improvements could be made to live/archived web streaming on www.parliament.uk encouraging wider viewing. — (18) I believe the current ban on the use of parliamentary footage on satirical programmes is counter-productive and could, with safeguards, be lifted, perhaps generating some revenue.

Strangers Gallery 1. In oral evidence, the broadcasters expressed a desire to feature shots of specific individuals sitting in the public gallery who might be named or alluded to during debates. I draw your attention to C-SPAN’s coverage of The State of the Union address, where relevant, selective shots of the President’s invited guests are allowed like this, in a controlled, uncontroversial manner. 2. I think this approach would enhance parliamentary coverage; as a subtle but powerful reminder that it is the people’s parliament which anyone can attend in person, also showing the chamber in a refreshingly different, more positive light than normally afforded by the “raucous” atmosphere of PMQs and prevalent (though highly misleading) shots of half-empty benches during many debates. I think it highly likely such new sequences would regularly feature as cutaways on evening news bulletins. 3. To mitigate against accusations of bias, there could be a simple agreed procedure before people can be shown. eg the broadcasters might informally agree desirable shots with the director at 7 Millbank. This list could be approved by the speaker. My understanding is that, for obvious security reasons, anyone sitting in the “open” areas of the Strangers Gallery (ie not behind glass) must be approved by the Sergeant at Arms or her staff in advance and provide a reason for attending, so presumably there are lists of expected attendees which you (parliament) could pre-approve for TV use. Ev 18 Administration Committee: Evidence

4. The committee expressed concern about interruptions and protests—my understanding is that when you’re taken to the Strangers Gallery you’re told in no uncertain terms you must sit still and not cause any sort of disturbance so firstly, it’s abundantly clear to anyone that they’ll be thrown out (or worse) if they misbehave. Secondly, as Peter Knowles said, it would still be you who had full control of output, not the broadcasters. The director has the ability to preview the image of the gallery before putting it to air, or to decide not to do so at all if s/he thinks it is too risky. I’d add that when there have been disturbances from the public gallery in the past, they’ve tended not to be terribly audible on the live feed—all the microphones in the chamber are highly directional and the control room staff are pretty swift to cut the sound in the event of an incident. Finally only a small portion of the gallery would be visible. 5. I’d argue it’s at least worth trialling this; perhaps for a high profile set-piece event like the Queen’s Speech debate or budget—with that you’d be able to get an idea of any impact on public opinion or use in national or international coverage. Alternatively you could do more modest experiments with adjournment debates or similar.

Listening Shots 6. I favour making these more lenient and agree with the broadcasters that if you were watching in person you’d naturally look around the chamber a lot more than present rules allow.

Camera Angles of Front Bench 7. Whilst I agree with some on the committee on public priorities, I would say this. Firstly, when any other interior or exterior location is seen through the same fixed set of camera positions with the same filming “style” for many years, as a viewer I think you become somewhat accepting of the limitations in individual shots; ie you don’t appreciate how much better things could look if subtle adjustments were made. I’m sure if you asked the public they wouldn’t say it was worth £50,000 but might appreciate the improvements it made afterwards. (If that was indeed the cost of moving cameras—I think the committee may have become confused by this. Regardless, it’s negligible compared to the control room upgrade.) 8. I’ve also noticed that when watching PMQs and ministerial statements on television, it’s really easy to be distracted by whoever is sitting to the left or the right of the dispatch box, because the angle of the camera means their heads are closer to the centre of the frame than the member speaking.

Camera Positions During Divisions 9. Firstly, I support the idea that even if not introduced permanently or as a trial, a one-off recording should be made for educational purposes. As was stated in oral evidence, during a division the actual process is taking place “off stage”. Apart from the speaker announcing the tellers and later ordering the doors be locked, all we’re allowed is a fixed wide angle view of the chamber. 10. I’d like to propose the director is given more creative freedom during this time, so they could show shots from the other end of the chamber looking towards the members’ lobby (given there is a lot of traffic this way), and also be allowed to use shots from the cameras at the side of the chamber showing members filing out into either lobby through the four side doors. As the way all MPs vote is made public anyway, this wouldn’t create a privacy issue. 11. I also think the broadcasters (at their own expense with their own equipment) should be permitted to show a locked-off shot of Central Lobby as part of their own coverage during a vote (ie not in the parliamentary feed)—it might be nice to be able to see MPs who weren’t in the chamber arriving to vote following important debates, so their constituents can see they’re still involved—you won’t notice them voting otherwise as they don’t pass through the chamber itself before they reach either lobby. It would also add an element of drama to see the Prime Minister or senior ministers arriving. I’m unclear if broadcasters are currently allowed to do this—we occasionally see reporters doing pieces-to-camera during a division, are they permitted to broadcast the general comings and goings in Central Lobby as well? (clearly the Members’ Lobby is out of bounds). 12. The ban on chamber sound during a division no longer seems to be in place (or wasn’t tonight)—I welcome this. 13. I attended the Houses of Parliament for the first time just this weekend to go on the visitors tour (incidentally, as it’s in your remit, I’d like to commend the efficiency and friendliness of your staff and Blue Badge guides, it was informative and very good value for money. Even the security screening wasn’t as bad as I expected. It’s great you’re running tours on Saturdays now—it was extremely busy.) 14. We were told how although the voting system is old-fashioned, MPs are keen to keep it because it’s pretty infallible (no danger of pressing a wrong button), that it allows them to rub shoulders with ministers and how even the Prime Minister must say his name when voting, like everyone else. Prior to the tour, I’d never realised the division bells actually rang in nearby bars and restaurants, and until I read some of your recent discussions on visitor access, I wasn’t aware that the police used to stop traffic for MPs to cross the road from Portcullis House to vote. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 19

15. Why does any of this matter? Well, if you only see the speaker announcing “Division” and must then wait 15 minutes for the “Ayes” and “Noes”, the process seems needlessly slow, people assume the only MPs voting are those already in the chamber, and the parliamentary language suggests the system is antiquated. 16. Now I have seen for myself the geography of the parliamentary estate, the “equality” of the actual vote and opportunity for MPs to speak to one another, and the effort they have to go to race to the lobbies in time before the doors are locked, my respect of the system has risen dramatically. I think that maybe if those not traditionally interested in politics or cynical about it get to see the process from a new perspective, they might just think “Wow, they take this really seriously. Parliament really matters after all.” 17. I agree with the Director of Broadcasting it’s important to make footage more widely available. My profession is making websites and I’d like to see parliament.uk move to a platform neutral web feed (ie a video format—known as HTML5—that would work on all devices, including phones and tablets.) It would encourage more people to embed your live or archived footage on their own websites. I recently wrote to the Parliamentary Recording Unit suggesting how they might add a live audio-only feed—something currently not provided by any broadcaster and which would be reliable enough for use by anyone (including MPs and staff) when out and about with a modern 3G mobile phone. 18. Finally I’d like to raise the issue of the use of parliamentary footage on satirical or entertainment programmes. You may remember a recent episode of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show was shown in America but not broadcast by Channel 4 (specifically More4) because it included some relatively innocuous footage of PMQs. The irony was the initial package was praising how the British Prime Minister is held accountable to parliament on a weekly basis, but once Comedy Central became aware it had been censured in the UK, they ran a second feature essentially mocking us. 19. It’s also inconsistent that a show like “This Week” (BBC1, Thursdays after Question Time) can get away with using parliamentary footage despite being (self-styled) “punchy, irreverent and satirical”, because it’s produced by the BBC’s current affairs department. 20. As a voter and strong supporter of the creative industries (and a believer in the positive contribution political satire can make to political debate) I think footage should be permitted for use on any UK television (or radio) show provided very strong conditions on editing, cutaways and dubbing are attached (broadcasters shouldn’t be allowed to alter the audio in any way or apply any visual effects that change the context) and they could be required to caption or verbally state the date the recording was made. In the light of your remarks on austerity, you might well decide to charge a royalty fee for any non-news use and it would seem reasonable that Ofcom should have the ability to impose a hefty fine on any broadcaster who abused the privilege or brought parliament into disrepute. February 2012

Written evidence submitted by The Scottish Parliament TELEVISION RULES OF COVERAGE This paper reports on the rules of coverage governing the televising of The Scottish Parliament, how those rules were arrived at and how they are implemented in practice.

Background to the Production of the Rules of Coverage In November 1998, the Minister of State responsible for Home Affairs, Devolution and Local Government, Henry McLeish, appointed an Expert Panel on Media Issues. Part of the remit of this Group was to advise on how the Parliament should present itself through the media. Membership of the group consisted of the Deputy Head of News and Current Affairs at BBC Scotland, a Senior Producer at Scottish Television, BBC Scotland’s Political Editor, a Head of Radio News, George Reid1 who was a member of the Consultative Steering Group, newspaper representatives and others. The report of the Consultative Steering Group on The Scottish Parliament Shaping Scotland’s Parliament, noted that for the Parliament to meet the expectations of the Scottish people, a culture of openness and accessibility will have to permeate its activities. The Expert Panel having deliberated and considered other Parliaments’ rules of coverage decided that The Scottish Parliament should have minimal rules allowing open, interesting television to encourage citizens to take an interest in the democratic process. In summary the Panel considered that television coverage should present a full, balanced, accurate and coherent account of proceedings with the aim of informing the viewer about its work. Picture direction should help viewers comprehend the nature of business being carried out, help stimulate interest in the Parliament and assist understanding of the decisions made. 1 George Reid became an MSP and Deputy Presiding Officer in the first session of the Parliament then the Parliament’s Presiding Officer (from 2003 to 2007). Ev 20 Administration Committee: Evidence

While it was agreed that the dignity and wellbeing of the Parliament should be respected, including its role as a working body, the Panel recommended that the “gallery surrogate” model should be adopted. This model allows the viewer to observe any aspect of proceedings at any time, as though he/she were a spectator in the public gallery. The rules it was agreed should allow a variety of shots to make proceedings visually more arresting and in turn more comprehensible to the viewer. The rules were agreed by the Panel and endorsed by Scottish Office Ministers at the time. These rules are supplemented by restrictions on the use which broadcasters can make of the feed. Details are in Annex 1. The rules were incorporated into the Standing Orders of the Parliament under “Reporting of Proceedings” which came into force in May 1999 and they were considered by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body2 as part of a wider consideration of broadcast issues and accepted.

Television Coverage at the Scottish Parliament The TV pictures are produced by the Parliament’s in house team under the direction of our Television Director. Originally the BBC held the contract for providing operational staff but this contract was brought in house in July 2011. All the proceedings in the Chamber and six committee rooms are televised. These pictures are provided to broadcasters (live to BBC and STV who have newsrooms at the Parliament), and on request to others. The live pictures are also available for viewing in all Members and staff offices on the campus through the internal television service; webcast and recorded for the archive. The overall directional style of coverage of proceedings in the Chamber and Committees is kept under review and every attempt is made to provide a variety of shots whilst ensuring that important speeches and statements from Ministers and MSPs are not unduly disrupted. For main speeches a camera can be isolated and a separate recording made to ensure broadcasters have a complete speech without cutaways etc. Although it is for the Parliament to decide its own rules of coverage an Advisory Group on Broadcasting (which includes representatives from UK companies who take the Parliament’s video feeds), meets on average once a year where the rules can be discussed. A report on the rules was made to the Parliamentary Bureau3 in its early years and no changes were recommended. In the 12 years the Parliament has sat the Broadcasting team has worked to these rules and national broadcasters have acknowledged the need to operate responsibly and adhered to the restrictions on use. In the early days of the Parliament one or two MSPs expressed concern that the liberal rules, which did not contain a specific ban on filming disruptions, might encourage protest in the public galleries or disruptions by MSPs, but this has not proved to be the case. In the 12 years of the rules being in place there have only been a handful of brief protests in the Chamber public gallery not all filmed as Chamber cameras normally cover the MSPs on the floor and the Presiding Officer and the first rule is that the Television Director should always adhere to the precedence of the Presiding Officer. A decision was taken to show a few seconds of establishing shots of one Chamber public gallery protest (in April 2001) when some Members clapped the protestors. In keeping with the gallery surrogate model it was felt that a brief shot would enable viewers to comprehend what was going on in the Chamber. To date no other protests have been filmed other than a protest by a few MSPs themselves in the Chamber in June 2005 which was naturally in shot but close ups were not used and as soon as the Presiding Officer suspended the meeting the video and audio was cut. The procedure for the Television Director and technical operators if the Presiding Officer, Deputy Presiding Officers or Committee Convener calls a suspension is as follows: — On announcement of a suspension, the sound feed from the meeting should be cut within three seconds, ie no audio should be recorded or fed to any destinations. — Following the announcement of a suspension, no shots should be offered apart from those of the Presiding Officer, Deputy Presiding Officer or Committee Convener. This mute shot should last for no more than three seconds, followed by an anonymous “architectural” shot or standard test signals. — When and if the suspension ends, normal rules of coverage should be followed. January 2012

Annex 1 Rules of Television Coverage for the Scottish Parliament4 1. The precedence of the Presiding Officer should always be adhered to by the Television Director. 2. The member who is selected to speak shall be shown on camera by medium close-up. 2 The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is responsible for ensuring that the Parliament is provided with the property, staff and services it requires. 3 The Bureau proposes the programme of business and other functions relating to business. 4 Rules of coverage apply to Parliamentary proceedings (Chamber and Committees) and events. For “Presiding Officer” also read “Deputy Presiding Officer”, “Convener” and “Chairperson” and for “MSP” and “Member” also read “delegate”. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 21

3. The camera should normally remain on the Member speaking until he or she is finished although cutaways are allowed. 4. The arrival of prominent Members in the Chamber and shots of the public gallery are allowed. 5. Cutaways as outlined in paragraphs 3 and 4 should be at the discretion of the Television Director. 6. Long shots of the chamber are acceptable at any time. 7. An interruption or disruption by an MSP should be medium shot switching where appropriate to the Presiding Officer for his/her ruling. 8. Officers of the Parliament and doorkeeper/security personnel attending in the Chamber should not normally be shown, unless actively involved in the proceedings. 9. There should be no close up shots of Members’ or Officials’ papers. Voting papers and consoles should not be shown. 10. Broadcasters should not distort the meaning of Members’ speeches in edits.

Special Techniques 11. Special effects should not in principle be ruled out although the equipment being installed will not permit these. Requests from broadcasters, who wish to use these techniques, at their expense, will be considered.

Committee Sittings 12. When in Committee a variation of wide, medium and close up shots may be used to best reflect the activities of the Committee. Officials or witnesses may be shown on camera as introduced by Ministers or the Committee Convener, or when answering questions at the direction of the Committee Convener.

Restrictions on the Use of Audio Visual Output — Recordings of extracts of proceedings should not be used in light entertainment or political satire. — Recordings or extracts of the proceedings may not be used in any form of advertising or caption type competitions or publicity or other than in the form of news and current affairs programme trailers. — SCPB will retain copyright of the record of the proceedings of the Parliament.

Written evidence submitted by the National Assembly for Wales 1. Background The National Assembly for Wales is committed to making its proceedings open and transparent to the people of Wales and beyond. Coverage of proceedings on television, radio and the internet are recognised as key facilitators of public access to Assembly business, particularly for those physically remote from the Assembly’s proceedings which mainly take place in Cardiff Bay. The Assembly, working with its host broadcaster, Bow Tie TV and its broadcasting partners BBC Wales, S4C and ITV Wales, has been broadcasting and recording proceedings since 1999. We have been streaming live and archived proceedings on the internet since 2002. Via the current web TV service www.senedd.tv, we have been streaming promotional videos and videos of press releases since summer 2009. The Assembly’s host broadcaster is appointed every five years as part of an OJEU contract. The last contract, won by Bow Tie TV, was awarded in 2010. As part of the contract, all plenary and public committee proceedings on the Assembly estate is recorded and made available free of charge to partner broadcasters to be used at their discretion. Proceedings held elsewhere is recorded as audio feeds or as a full outside broadcasts. All audio-visual services and outputs under the host broadcasting contract are provided exclusively to the Assembly. The Assembly determines what other organisations have authorised access to this output, and with the host broadcaster tries to maintain arrangements which minimise unauthorised use of this output. All output is subject to copyright.

2. Role of the Host Broadcaster The host broadcaster undertakes regular routine checks of equipment prior to each plenary meeting and committee meeting to ensure full coverage of proceedings can take place. The checks cover equipment in the host broadcasting suite, Siambr, and all committee rooms. The host broadcaster provides live and continuous audio-visual feeds of all public Assembly proceedings held at the National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff Bay. Two versions of the feed will always be provided—a branded feed including the Assembly’s logo for webcasting and in-house purposes, and a “clean feed” for the Assembly’s partner broadcasters. Translated and verbatim audio must be provided with both feeds. Ev 22 Administration Committee: Evidence

The host broadcaster needs to comply with technical standards and codes of practice of the Assembly’s partner broadcasters. The host broadcaster is responsible for maintaining the Assembly’s Broadcasting and A/V equipment. The host broadcaster is responsible for maintaining and providing technical support for the Assembly’s current webcasting service, www.senedd.tv. This includes: — liaising with the hosting company on all technical issues relating to the service’s streaming servers, including fault resolution, planned maintenance and upgrades; — first-line support for queries and faults relating to encoding and streaming equipment; and — first-line support for queries and faults relating to the software and databases that sit behind the website. The host broadcaster is responsible for the following tasks before, during and after Plenary meetings: Pre Meeting, the Host Broadcaster is responsible for: — conducting all pre meeting checks on the broadcasting systems covering the Siambr; — ensuring that Members’ voting cards are allocated to the correct seats; and — ensuring that Members’ earpieces are distributed and allocated correctly. During Meetings, the Host Broadcaster is responsible for: — ensuring that video feeds are recording at least one minute prior to the start of a meeting; — ensuring that video feeds are available to partner broadcasters; — ensuring that audio channels remain closed until the meeting starts; — all elements of camera and audio control, including opening and closing microphones at the request of the Presiding Officer or Chair; — ensuring that the meetings are being broadcast on the Assembly’s internet broadcasting service; — inserting captions on the “internal” feed, including names of speakers; and — ensuring that all video and audio feeds are closed at the end of the meeting. Following Meetings, the Host Broadcaster is responsible for: — ensuring that the meeting is archived following the Assembly’s guidelines; — ensuring that the archived meeting is available on the Assembly’s internet broadcasting service; and — ensuring that Members’ earpieces are collected and securely stored. For Committee meetings, the host broadcaster is responsible for the following actions: Pre Meeting, the Host Broadcaster is responsible for: — conducting all pre meeting checks on the broadcasting systems covering the Committee Room; — ensuring that wireless microphones are set up within the room for the meeting as per a table plan provided by the Assembly’s staff; — ensuring that the control PC is set up for the meeting; — ensuring that Members’ and staff earpieces are distributed and allocated correctly, and headsets allocated for witnesses; and — ensuring that an audio and video feed is provided to the IT systems used in the Senedd. During Meetings, the Host Broadcaster is responsible for: — ensuring that video feeds are recording at the start of a meeting; — ensuring that video feeds are available to partner broadcasters; — ensuring that audio channels remain closed until the meeting starts; — all elements of camera and audio control, including opening and closing microphones at the request of the Chair; — ensuring that audio and video feeds are switched off when meetings go into private session, and switched on as soon as a meeting goes back into public session; — ensuring that the meetings are being broadcast on the Assembly’s internet broadcasting service; and — ensuring that all video and audio feeds are closed at the end of the meeting. Following Meetings, the Host Broadcaster is responsible for: — ensuring that the meeting is archived following the Assembly’s guidelines (see requirement 3.7); — ensuring that the archived meeting is available on the Assembly’s internet broadcasting service; — ensuring that the wireless microphone units are charged for the next meeting and stored appropriately; and — ensuring that Members’ and staff earpieces are collected and securely stored. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 23

The host broadcaster is required to provide, as a minimum, an audio recording of all off-site meetings. When required by the Assembly, full broadcast coverage of off-site meetings are provided. The host broadcaster is responsible for the recording of all proceedings and its catalogueing for archive purposes, following procedures specified by the Assembly. Proceedings are currently recorded onto Betacam SX videotape and archived as master copies. The host broadcaster manages the Assembly’s current archive of master tapes dating back to the first Plenary session in 1999. At present, the videotapes are stored in the Pierhead building, Cardiff Bay. Footage is recorded onto approximately 300 Betacam SX videotapes per year. However, the Assembly is currently looking at developing a digital storage system and archive. The host broadcaster ensures that a constant and consistent two-channel audio-feed from the chamber and operational committee rooms is fed to the systems used by Record of Proceedings (RoP) staff to undertake their work. The RoP is a word-for-word record of all public Assembly proceedings, edited for accuracy, consistency and to avoid unnecessary repetition. A fully bilingual record of Plenary proceedings is produced within 24 hours of the end of a meeting. Draft transcripts of Committee meetings are published within five working days of the meeting, and final versions within 10 working days. In the event of the failure of the systems to record live proceedings or of any temporary loss of the sound feed signal, irrespective of fault, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to replay primary recorded extracts of proceedings for RoP purposes. The host broadcaster manages the production, distribution and administration of a tape-to-tape, disc-to-tape and tape-to-disc copying operation. The host broadcaster may charge for the cost of any tape or disc and postage, but no other charges can be made.

3. Summary of Locations and Main Operational Equipment Location of rooms and services — The Assembly has an operational area dedicated to its host broadcaster (the Host Broadcaster Suite) which houses five broadcast galleries, a main control room, studio area, and offices. The Host Broadcaster Suite is located on the ground floor of Ty^ Hywel; — The majority of the National Assembly for Wales’ public proceedings is conducted in the Senedd, which houses a debating chamber (the Siambr) where all Plenary meetings (full meetings of all 60 Assembly Members) are held, and three Committee Rooms; — A fourth Committee Room is located on the ground floor of Ty^ Hywel; and — The Assembly’s education facility, Siambr Hywel, is located in the Assembly’s previous debating chamber, used between 1999 and 2006. Siambr Hywel is adjacent to the host broadcaster suite.

Vision—Current Provision — The Siambr is covered by eight Panasonic AWE860 broadcast cameras located within a recess circling the debating chamber at a height of 2.5 metres above the lowest point of the chamber floor. Six cameras are mounted on six identical horizontal camera-tracking rails (built by Radamec) within the recess. Also situated in the recess are two cameras on standard pan and tilt robotic heads with zoom and focus control. All cameras are 16:9/4:3 switchable aspect ratio, with a minimum of 850 lines resolution. The cameras use six x 12:1 lenses and two x 19:1 lenses and are racked from the vision gallery. — There are four Panasonic AWE860 cameras in committee rooms 3 and 4, mounted on Radamec 431 robotic heads. Committee Rooms 1, 2 have Panasonic AW800 cameras mounted on Radamec 431 robotic heads. The robotic heads in all rooms are controlled from the committee vision galleries.

Audio — The debating chamber is fitted with a Televic delegate audio conference system along with associated interpreter facilities for up to two additional language interpretation channels. The conference system is permanently installed into each chamber desk, and is controlled from a dedicated sound operator booth with line of sight view of proceedings in the chamber. — Microphone selection for the seats in the Siambr is via a console in the booth. The console is linked to a cue computer which automatically selects pre-programmed camera shots of the seat linked to that microphone. — In addition to the Televic system, 44 AKG Boundary microphones and six Sennheiser ambient microphones feed in to the Yamaha DM1000 sound desk, which is located in the booth. — The four committee rooms have wireless digital delegate conference systems (Beyer MCWD50) along with associated interpreter facilities for up to two additional language interpretation channels. Each committee room has a dedicated sound operator booth with line of sight view of proceedings in the room. — Microphone selection for the wireless units is via a PC located in the booth. — No boundary or ambient microphones are used in the committee rooms. The sound desk used in each booth is a Yamaha 01v96. Ev 24 Administration Committee: Evidence

Control — A Control Room is situated in room AZ9 in the Senedd. It houses both broadcasting and AV equipment, and is the point at which broadcasting, AV and all relevant data are combined for connection to Ty^ Hywel. — The host-broadcaster suite contains the Main Control Room (MCR); main vision gallery, covering the chamber, and four vision galleries covering the committee rooms. There is also a studio area which houses the Client’s BSL interpretation equipment;

4. Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Proceedings in the Senedd Y Siambr The host broadcaster should ensure that the signal provides a full, fair and accurate account of the proceedings of the Assembly. The host broadcaster should provide coverage that follows the proceedings of the Assembly. This means that the coverage should concentrate primarily on the Assembly Member who is speaking. However, a variety of shots may be used to illustrate the geography of the Chamber. The host broadcaster should provide coverage that clearly shows the method of voting in the Assembly. The host broadcaster should switch to a picture of the Presiding Officer whenever he or she is speaking. A close-up or a wide-angle shot would be permissible. The host broadcaster should not show any demonstration or interference from the public that may take place inside the Chamber or public gallery. In the event of a disturbance involving the public on the Chamber floor, the host broadcaster should switch to a still image of the Senedd building and all audio feeds to broadcasters cut. In the event of a disturbance in the public gallery, the host broadcaster should switch to a wide feed of the Presiding Officer’s desk and initially cut to the Presiding Officer’s microphone only. In the event of the disturbance being picked up on the Presiding Officer’s microphone, all audio feeds from the Chamber shall be cut. When the Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer suspends proceedings in the Chamber following an announcement, the host broadcaster should cut to a wide shot. After one minute, the feed to broadcasters should be switched to a still image of the Senedd building. The host broadcaster should, however, continue to record a wide shot of the chamber. The wide shot should again be offered to the broadcasters as a re-establishing shot as the period of suspension ends.

Committee Rooms The host broadcaster should ensure that the signal provides a full, fair and accurate account of Committee proceedings. The host broadcaster should concentrate primarily on the Assembly Member who is speaking in Committee. However, a variety of shots may be used to illustrate the geography of the Committee Rooms. The host broadcaster should switch to a picture of the Committee Chair whenever he or she is speaking. A close-up or a wide-angle shot would be permissible. The host broadcaster should not show any demonstration or interference from the public that may take place inside the committee rooms. In the event of a disturbance involving the public, the host broadcaster should switch to a still image of the Senedd building and all audio feeds to broadcasters cut. When Committee proceedings are suspended following an announcement by the Chair, the host broadcaster should cut to a wide shot and audio feeds cut.

Use of footage for Broadcast purposes When using the signal in their programmes, all broadcasting organisations should pay heed to the dignity of the Assembly. It would not be appropriate to use extracts from the coverage in any way that might trivialise the proceedings or undermine the authority of the Assembly.

Use of the media commentary booths The Chamber Media Commentary Booths may be used for live broadcasts during Plenary meetings subject to the adherence of this code of conduct. Any breach of this code could result in the withdrawal of this privilege. When the Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer suspends proceedings in the Chamber following an announcement, broadcasters should ensure that no activity on the Chamber floor should be shown. Broadcasters using the media commentary booths for live purposes should not show any demonstration or interference from the public that may take place inside the Chamber or public gallery. Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 25

Broadcasters using the media commentary booths should ensure that any information displayed on Members’ computer screens is not legible to viewers. Users of the media commentary booths are also asked to respect the privacy of Assembly Members and officials while they work on their personal computers in the Chamber. December 2005

Written evidence submitted by Greater London Authority Bow Tie Television Presently the provider of broadcast and a/v services to the London Assembly and GLA is Bow Tie Television. This is the same company who provide coverage at the Welsh Assembly, the House of Lords, House of Commons and committees of both houses. The Bow Tie GLA operation is run by a team who have a great deal of experience covering political debate, much of which has been gained by first hand experience of working at the UK Parliament. Our terms of reference for covering meetings at the GLA have been informed by our experiences at the UK Parliament. As such we follow a framework very similar to that of Parliamentary coverage. We see this is an advantage as the Parliamentary rules offer a good guide to how political coverage should be presented. We believe the rules of coverage we employ offer a good balance between informing and entertaining the viewer while avoiding bringing the body into disrepute or presenting biased coverage. The GLA does not have a formal set of rules that are written down and adhered to—our basis is the rules we have garnered from Parliament. For example we do not show any public disturbances in the galleries and we will always “cut” to the Chair during such disturbances—which is the method employed by Parliament. We will however at times show audience members if referred to by Assembly Members, which is something that is not permitted under the rules at Parliament .We feel this offers some added colour to the coverage— references to members of the public or other Assembly Members are often accompanied by a “cutaway” shot of that person if they are present, provided they are not being shown in a light which may bring the meeting, The London Assembly, The Mayor, or The GLA into any disrepute. This approach was developed in close consultation with the London Assembly’s senior business managers. Our main guide for how we cover meetings is our weekly broadcast meeting where issues for the forthcoming week are discussed and any issues arising from the present week’s coverage are considered. We take very seriously all feedback we receive at these meetings—the press teams from both the Mayor and the Assembly are present, and they understand the conflict of trying to offer unbiased non-controversial coverage while adding colour and interest to proceedings which broadcasters demand. As such we often discuss how to maintain a good level of interesting coverage while not exceeding our informal guidelines. We feel that this meeting is essential in that we gain a good consensus—a “steer” about what is permissible and what is not. We believe very strict rules of coverage have some advantages and some disadvantages. Having a very tight hold on the coverage does offer some comfort as it means that transgressions of the rules are less likely as there are less “grey areas” where what is permissible or not is much more clear cut. A disadvantage of this is that it reduces the quality and interest of coverage and reduces the cut and thrust of debate presented to the public. Broadcasters such as Sky or the BBC will always want the whole debate to be covered without rules of any kind because this offers the possibility of showing scenes of disruption or member altercations. While we understand this desire we are always guided by the principle of never bringing the bodies we televise into any kind of disrepute. So, whilst taking account of what the broadcasters would like, we are quite clear that our client is the GLA, and so their needs and wishes always take precedence. We feel at Bow Tie GLA that we have an advantage in being housed in the same building as where the proceedings actually take place, as this means our client can reach us quickly and offer advice or criticism about our coverage which prevents the wrong image of the GLA and Assembly being presented to the world. Our relationship with both the Mayoral and Secretariat press teams is essential in us maintaining the balance between fair unbiased coverage and avoiding the pitfall of boring the viewer. In conclusion, we believe that while the rules of coverage have a place in maintaining a fair, balanced, non controversial viewpoint, this can lead to a less colourful view of proceedings. In our experience the rules of coverage we employ at the GLA are there as guidelines and are constantly evolving as we encounter new challenges. Essential to our broadcasts is the close relationship we have with our client. The fact that our key client and senior representatives of both the Mayor and the Assembly have not felt it necessary to impose a formal set of rules of coverage in the five years that Bow Tie TV has provided broadcast quality coverage, stands testament to the efficacy of this system. 6 January 2012

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 06/2012 020655 19585

PEFC/16-33-622